Extremely troublesome for power relations between branches.
While it would be good to end Chinese piracy, Trump's attempts to apply pressure to get trade concessions have been quixotic and not very successful
Public health threats warrant special measures; quarantines may be sensible in some cases.  however, Trump's border-closing responses are in no way a substitute for ramping up preparedness for COVID-19 spread at home.
revenge and vindictiveness are a hallmark of this administration
Nixon did something similar.  But the scale and scope is unusual in this administration.
constitutional law; american political development
The only abnormal presidential behaviors that you could think of (Iran-Contra and Watergate) involved Republican presidents? Really?
Colonialisms and Neo-colonialisms, Latin America, Decoloniality
I would like to have another response like "I don't know" or "I don't know enough about this topic to respond".  There were some questions which were a bit technical for me.
Until Congress takes back its power presidents are going to push the limits with these types of actions.
You need to add to this question without hearing from any witnesses.
Disgusting, suggests the Justice Department is politicized.
Electoral politics and applied public policy
Normal in the sense that this is how US empire operates
Used same language as Justice Kavanaugh.  tempest/teapot
This now has 3 events rolled into one: Trump behavior, House impeaches, Senate doesn't convict.    so even more muddled than previous question.
Trump's behavior  (abuse of power) is highly abnormal.  Him being held accountable for it is normal in the sense of being appropriate, but not normal in the sense of being a common event (because such extreme abuse of power is rare).  I don't think the question was well worded on this one because there are two underlying events rolled into one.
he is just a lawyer advocating a position that would be dangerous if was articulated by the OLC
as there was no chance of conviction and the senate was controlled by partisans of the president, what would you expect?
we may not know until the fall when there may be a presidential election
Nothing is really "normal" in light of the unprecedented threat of COVID-19. The restriction of movement is one necessary part of addressing this public health crisis and pandemic.
(See prior explanation of rating of House impeachment)
To be clear, it's abnormal in that this happens rarely. It is, however, normal in that it is perfectly constitutional for the House to impeach the president.
African American Politics, the US Presidency
There was nothing abnormal about what *Pelosi* did. It was in response to abnormal behavior about what *McConnell* did.
Schumer should have chosen his words more carefully, but he clarified afterward that he was saying the reputation of the Justices would suffer and the fate of the Republican Party would suffer at the polls. He wasn't threatening the safety of these two Justices.
Strange question wording. Of course impeaching a president isn't "normal." But it is entirely appropriate to impeach Trump given all of his impeachable offenses. So there's nothing abnormal about what the *House* did.
judicial politics, racial politics, environmental politics, law and society
see comments about normal/abnormal. Question didn't allow me to capture that Pelosi's response was normal. It was her response to abnormal behavior by McConnell.
This action undermines military discipline and shows additional erosion of the rule of law.
With current levels of partisanship, this is "normal", but the lack of process and admitting partisan ties over public interest are extremely troubling.
Under this logic, anything goes. This is a blatant undermining of rule of law.
Strange things happen under such circumstances, but the xenophobic nature of this action is notable.
Personal vendettas to protect an executive at any cost again undermine the rule of law. Loyalty to Trump is more important than service to the Republic.
Cronyism is contrary to democracy and this case directly goes toward a core function of government - protection of the policy - than cannot be subsumed to personal friends to protect a corrupt executive.
While I'm more aligned with Schumer, it was irresponsible to target two named members of another branch of government and demonstrates the continuation of the breakdown of democratic norms.
For once in recent memory, the legislative branch tried to hold the executive accountable.
Trump overrode the power of a military court and did so against the advice of military leaders. Again, that damages democracy.
The president is attempting to publicly threaten and intimidate members of the legislative branch -- unless the legislative branch utilizes its power to respond (which is hasn't), that damages our democracy.
Any quid pro quo of that type is illegal.
Hard to tell from the news, but how was this tied to agreements to private contracts with the US? If the President instigated a trade war to benefit private businesses (perhaps his own?), then that is surely abnormal -- or should be.
Clearly punishment for doing their duty by the Constitution. A president that puts personal loyalty over that to the Constitution has no place in a democracy.
Neither the executive nor the legislative branch should influence the judicial.
The judicial branch is supposed to be independent of political and, especially, presidential influence.
This survey should ask respondents for their party identification and ideology at the end. Academia is unrepresentative of the mass public (or an imaginary hypothetical universe in which even-handed experts evaluated current events) in both partisanship and ideology. In addition, scholars are susceptible to the same forces in answering these questions that we would expect from ordinary citizens.
The president pardons a convicted war criminal.
Constant undermining of norms of impartiality and democracy by POTUS.
Partisanship overrides what is good for the country and checks and balances system.
Destroys Congress's constitutional oversight function in checks and balances system.
Loyalty test for intelligence personnel is undemocratic.
House doing its job of checking clear presidential abuse of power.
Racial Attitudes, Ideology, Young people
Another message that if you are on the president's (Republican) side, you can do no wrong. Even when you've been clearly shown to have done wrong.
The Senate majority is the same party as the president, and they actively worked together to defeat impeachment even though anyone capable of critical thought can see Trump is not fit to govern. With a Republican senate majority, Congress is not an effective check on the executive branch.
I honestly do not know much about this particular issue.
They were punished in political fashion for telling the truth.
Less important, but still a powerful message that racism and misinformation is tacitly approved by the administration.
Mostly normal in that the Democrats followed procedure and precedent, abnormal since this doesn't happen often.
Clearly he would call for this because of their political leanings, not from any real conflict of interest.
It's the manner in which the vote was arrived at that is significant, not the vote itself.
The quotation is taken out of context. Dershowitz was excluding the possibility of criminal or "criminal-like" activity. With that caveat his argument sounds a lot less nuts (albeit in my view still incorrect). A bigger issue is the exclusive focus on "quid pro quo" as the measure of "corruption", a problem that the Supreme Court has introduced and that has plagued our constitutional understandings since Citizens United
This type of "logic" undermines the basic foundations of democracy.
Democracy assumes an informed and interested public.  Media personalities who provide consistently inaccurate information should not be rewarded.
Impeachment used to be important. But it was normalized more than 20 years ago. It will be more common in the decades to come, and it will matter even less than it does now.
Too much about impeachment in this survey. Too little about other important matters -- at least more telling matters -- like Trump targeting DoJ officials who worked under Mueller. (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/20/trump-allies-target-mueller-team-116168)
interesting, important, thanks and keep it up.
While this hasn't happened before, the purpose of allowing public opinion to make sure the Senate would act on the articles was a legitimate purpose.
Presidents can pardon whomever, but defying the military leadership in a military case sends a bad signal and undermines military ethics.
There were people directly relevant to the investigation that signaled their willingness to testify in the Senate.  The unwillingness to hear them indicates senators were making up their minds based on incomplete information and politics.  That's not how impeachment should work.
nice to see Congress can still serve a policy purpose.
The president has a right to appoint or remove people to these positions, but removing them for testifying to Congress against the president is troubling.
Some offices need to be based on experience, not politics.
Symbolically, this was important--the President is essentially continuing to stir division in the country--but it was not substantively important, and it didn't signal a change or expansion in presidential power.
Thanks for making the results publicly available.  My students and I find them interesting.
Partisan interests placed above the law.
It was surprising to see the government protect public health by restricting access to tobacco despite opposition from powerful corporate interests.
While desirable, it is quite unlikely the current Congress will do this.
Public opinion, political parties, interest groups
Questions phrased in the negative are somewhat confusing.
Well impeachment itself is abnormal, so anything done during this time is also abnormal and important
Disgraces service men and women who follow the rules, and are otherwise actually punished when they don't
disease control, which was biased, unfortunately seems to require strict movement control
how about let's rephrase that question: the civil service is full of people who for political reasons are actively sabotaging the intentions of the chief executive and leaking classified information to politically motivated journalists. Is that normal? is that important?
By law the president can name whoever the president wants for that position. if was abnormal or important, congress or the courts would do something about it, and if it was important, the electorate would insist that their legislative representatives do something about it, and if they didn't then the electorate would respond accordingly...to what is important to them. that's the only ultimate criteria of what is "important" or "normal." Your examples are funny themselves
many questions obviously politically biased
When a pol has nothing constructive to offer, she will resort to obstruction
He was a terrorist, ready to kill more humans.
After being called "motherf*cker" by congresspeople who are glorified for doing this, what should we expect?
They knew they serve at the convenience of . . .
After Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, what do prizes mean?
People's voice in next November is the only thing important.  I THOUGHT THIS SURVEY WAS ABOUT 'DEMOCRACY' ?  WHAT GIVES?
Since it was uttered by a Democrat pol on his way out; not important.
Establishes precedent that party loyalty precedes norms of separation of powers and rule of law.
Extremely harmful to norms surrounding the rule of law. Establishes the precedent for arguing that the president cannot be held accountable for any action.
Glad to see you are continuing the project. Next time on coronavirus and both presidential and congressional actions on a very, very big health challenge?
Voting, elections, redistricting, voting rights
I had trouble with this. The senate voting to acquit a president is normal, but given the evidence it is abnormal.
Parties, Social movements, and methodology.
It has become normal for Congress to take AWAY civil rights and liberties. I am a rabid anti-smoker, but I think that 18-20 year olds, who have to sign their life away for student loans, fight in wars and vote, should be able to order a beer and, sadly, smoke, should they want to.
I think this was an appropriate, if difficult step. Unfortunately, it was not accompanied by any other scientifically-based efforts until it was too late.
The politicization of this process is horrendous.
It's depressingly normal for this president, but would not have been tolerated of other presidents, especially President Obama, who was held to a much higher ethical standard.
Abnormal generally but I would think completely normal given the circumstances. It's a little difficult to separate the impeachment from the behavior. Is the behavior abnormal? absolutely! Is impeachment abnormal?  not for that behavior.
I think the comment was taken a bit out of context, bc the whirlwind, of course, was in reference to Kavanaugh's statements during confirmation hearings. However, I do not think that legislative leaders should be calling out Supreme Court justices.
This president crosses every boundary, and directly calling out Supreme Court justices and politicizing the judiciary is just another example of his many, many errors.
It is very depressing to complete the survey, because it is a reminder (as if we needed one) of how broken our democratic system is -- both in terms of legal processes and traditional norms.
Again, evidence of the Constitutionally-established power of impeachment at work. The President does not have to be removed from office for the process to be working.
If this reasoning is correct, then presidents have no check against their power in any case. It flies in the face of Constitutional government.
Nothing extraordinary about a president taking an expansive view of executive privilege. What is extraordinary is that the House of Representatives did not ask the judicial branch to intervene.
Trade agreements are a normal part of governance, and the power to negotiate them clearly given to the president in Article II.
Impeachment is a Constitutionally-established process. While rarely used, it is evidence of the Constitutional system working effectively.
Action diminishes the legitimacy of the judicial branch.
US strike violated treaties on human rights and laws of war.
Statement by President denies the political legitimacy of an elected opposition leader which is an important sign of political decay, specifically the weakening of the agreement in a stable democracy that political opposition is a defining characteristic of political democracy (Linz and Stepan definition).
Most if not all presidents believe their re-election, if legal, would be in the public interest, regardless of the facts supporting or opposing that claim. Hence Dershowitz's claim is not a credible defense against impeachment.
Although not unprecedented in prior administrations, Trump's assertion of an absolute Executive autonomy from Congressional subpoenas is inconsistent with the fundamental principle of checks and balances in American constitutional democracy.
Limbaugh had long history of polarizing rhetoric and untrue claims.
See previous explanation of role of opposition in a democracy.
Latin American civil-military relations, policy sciences
Question about the impact of this impeachment process ending in acquittal on future presidents lacks context necessary to provide meaningful response, i.e. it depends on the future circumstances.
assassination is not unheard of, and perhaps not that unusual?   Only "mostly important" because I don't know how much it will change/has changed Iraqi actions now or in future
normal in the sense that most senators vote their party in the (abnormal) circumstance of impeachment
I am mostly guessing on this one -- I don't know much about Chinese trade relations, and we don't know yet how much difference this deal will make
only mostly abnormal because it has happened before -- and depending on who the officials are and who they are replaced with, it may or may not be really important
Some of the actions of both Republicans and Democrats surrounding impeachment demonstrate problems with the institutional mechanisms of government that are not easily remedied.
This action demonstrates no respect for the rule of law, which is critical to democratic function.
The credential of ambassador mentioned above is less important than the new DNI's lack of experience in intelligence issues. It is not unreasonable for a President to appoint someone who is politically aligned with himself. However, appointing a "yes man" with no experience is problematic.
This would be somewhat similar to requiring drivers to ‘buckle up.’ It is important for people’s health and safety but does not affect how democratic the system is.
You have done a pretty good job of framing questions so as to avoid bias. Hard to do with this Pesident but worth it so as to maintain research intergrity.
The Speaker had concerns that the Senate would conduct a sham trial, one further legitimated by the administration's stonewalling legitimate requests for information needed to conduct proper government oversight per the Constitution.
To target a high ranking official of a legitimate government against which the US government had not declared war breached international law, set a bad example, and sets a precedent that might be used against the US in the future.
A highly partisan Republican-led Senate undermined the concept of a trial in its fulness with witnesses and evidence. This was another example, following the election of a president by less than a majority vote of the citizens of the country, of a government tilted toward minority rule.
The Senate, under the control of the Republican Party, failed in its oversight responsibilities. Republican Senators, save Romney, violated the oath administered by the Chief Justice that they took at the outset of the proceedings.
Whether this administration can get to Phase 2 or even complete Phase 1 is an open question. The use of tariffs to get China's attention to American grievances may have been necessary but that path lays the burden of enforcement on the American consumer and also raises the question of what happens if China doesn't stop the behavior that gave rise to the grievances in the first place?
Visits by US presidents to troops in the field have precedent.
This example of retribution against white blowers and relatives guts the Whistleblower Protection Act and accelerates a trend toward secrecy in government.
Trump's pool of supporters who are competent is dangerously shallow and narrow, as might be expected of a president from the private sector and without government experience. This is a natural consequence of electing a person who is backed by "starve-the-beast" ideologues.
The president's behavior subverts the independence of the judiciary demanded by the US Constitution.
While I consider this behavior abnormal, it is not unprecedented as Nixon also refused subpoenas in the past
These "normalcy" questions are odd.  There are 2 meanings of normal: within the democratic norms and usual.  And then,  for this question, I'd like to answer that the politicization is outrageous and a dereliction of duty, but follows a pattern.
Normal in sense of within the rules, not in sense of frequent.
As mentioned, I think the questions were poorly worded.
Threats from the executive against another public official are definitely NOT normal. It would be important but for the limiting fact that the President tweets so much nonsense that most people no longer take him seriously.
This was a terrible thing to say. I am not sure it was taken seriously enough to qualify as fully important, though.
The executive is interfering in the normal workings of the judicial process in order to help his friends. What's worse--and more abnormal--he is doing it publicly.
The fact that the executive is able to retaliate against those who expose its criminality is important and not normal for a democracy
It's normal in that it conforms to the rules, but not normal in that is has only happened twice before. It is definitely important.
It is less important because he cannot enforce his dictum. It is definitely not normal, though. I rated it a bit lower than some other events just because they were much worse than this.
Filling this out was substantially more upsetting than the last round!
The current presidency raises major questions about the pardon power.  The case for pardoning this particular individual seemed unjustified.
One in a series of statements by the president that does not meet expectations about the way that presidents talk.
This points toward the challenges of true checks and balances in any system.
The path to getting there wasn't really normal but reaching the agreement was normal.
This is a "normal" policy for an outside-of-the-normal time.
The lack of concern for expertise under the current administration is abnormal compared to other patterns of appointment.
Perhaps Schumer was taken out-of-context, but this was an attack on the independence of the SCOTUS the we do not typically see.
The politicization of the SCOTUS strikes me as unusual.
economic development; corruption; political behavior; governance
Hard to say -- it's abnormal in the sense that we've only had three Senate votes/"trials" on impeachment, but absolutely normal in the way the votes fell out on party lines --
Hard to say, again, for the same reason -- behavior like that from a President is definitely abnormal, but coming from our Graftmeister-in-Chief it is all too typical --
In every other impeachment trial, be it of Presidents or judges, my understanding is that the Senate has called witnesses and assembled further evidence --
Did that actually happen? (embarrassed grin, here...) --
Its abnormal status and importance are primarily functions of the unusual circumstances of the pandemic, although it is not hard to see potential implications for democracy flowing from the exercise of such power --
The troops do deserve a big turkey, after all...
Corruption, governance, democratization, political reform, development...
I continue to think it is both interesting and important -- the two don't always go together -- and I hope you'll be able to carry on with it --
Under the Trump administration it is difficult to know what is considered "normal". The US also has a long history of involvement in foreign governments and affairs, i.e. during the Cold War. So while perhaps not correct according to international law it is not outside the realm of what the US government has done.
Toxic rhetoric and foolishness like this lowers the standards for civil discourse.
President Trump fails to understand either due process or equal treatment under the law.  The President operates as if he is above the law and is politicizing the legal system across the board.
Foreign policy departure. Hostile act carried out in a "friendly" state with a high potential for serious geo-political fallout
Seriously intrudes on military justice system, and politicizes military generally.
On the edge, the power to hold the trial and vote is "normal" but occurs infrequently. However, the trial itself was abnormal for its lack of engagement with substantive issues.
Doing something to "get elected" is a private (not a public) motivation - tantamount to using public office for private gain.
Important separation of powers struggle.
seriously infringed on the rule of law and indepence of the broader judicial system
Borderline - it is within Congress's powers - but is not an everyday governance occurrence.
Thank you for continuing with this study. It is important work.
There are executive powers that rely on the best judgement of the president with no constitutional checks and balances. This is one of them. This issue is abnormal because We now have a president who cannot be trusted with this kind of discretionary power.  It’s important because the rule of law can be overthrown with a presidential pardon.
Hard to get excited about trade deals in the midst of a global quarantine, but it’s important.
No strong feelings on this one. I don’t support this law, but It seems like a pretty normal piece of congressional business.
I don’t know anything about this issue so you may wish to discount my response
This is scary stuff. It’s abnormal because when was the last President to have done this— FDR??? It’s important because we already know that the replacements will have no spine, so  good policy making will suffer.
to Make a big deal of Schumer’s comments is just partisan politics.
Question isn't really answerable as stated, it's too vague.   What is meant by 'government officials' -- 'trust' appointments vs. purging civil service, etc.  Unless the point of the question is to measure answerer bias (ie, it's worse when trump does X than when another admin does x).  But then there's no choice but to answer, so I've answered...
Appropriate use of force against a person at war with the US for years and with the blood of more than 600 Americans on his hands
As with Bill Cling ton, a vote of censure for unbecoming conduct in office  would have been the best option.
No rule of law, no democracy (apologies to Barrington Moore....)
Given China's weight in the global economy and in exports to the U.S., agreements on trade matter a lot.
This is what tinpot dictators do.  (Along with giving family members top -- and lucrative -- positions.)
Can't answer this -- can't tell if the nominee has any intel experience.
"Normal" & "not normal" are fuzzy terms.  I anwered as though the questions were asking if the actions were consistent with common understandings of democracy.
Creates an argument that anything in the president's interest is in the nation interest - another step toward dictatorship
Violates the oversight authority of the legislative branch and undermines the rule of law
Another example of the president hijacking the bureaucracy to serve his (and his allies') interests over the interests of the nation.
This an unacceptable practice that could lead to an authoritarian regime and kleptocracy
State Politics, Representation, LGBTQ Politics, Direct Democracy
Predictable; Republican senators will not vote to remove a president who is overwhelmingly popular with their base.
Typical Trump but not close to the worst he's done.
Elections, public opinion, Congress, the presidency
Speaker Pelosi exercising her rights as a strategic leader; didn't affect much.
Unusual, but not unprecedented or completely unreasonable.  The excuse for doing it was fatuous (and typical for Trump admin, which doens't care about the truth)
Such a tweet strikes at the core of American democracy and the separation of powers.  Out of bounds and extremely important re the President's state of mind.
Crucially importnt re getting at facts in impeachmnet inquiriy.  All administrations resists subpeonas to an extent, but the blanket, vigorous opposition was abnormal.
See previous response.  Admins have power to remove appointees, but in this extremely important instance, mostly abnormal.
The Majority Leader, despite his thoughts, needs to keep his mouth shut.  Exacerbating separation of powers issues, and gives opponents lots of ammunition.
Reasonable result given evidence, and his acquittal was scarcely unexpected.  Impeahcment+partisan polarization gets us this.
Congress, legislative politics, interest groups/lobbying, state politics
US violations of international and national law are nothing new. But each incident is significant.
The current president condemns people who attempt to uphold the law and ethical standards of conduct and rewards such lawless individuals as this war criminal. I say it is 'mostly important' because it does not affect the entire society in the way that Social Security does, but it is still a major subversion of the rule of law.
I did not say totally abnormal because a bit of partisanship is to be expected. But overall to let the current president off the hook for subverting the democratic process in advance of the coming presidential election is abnormal in that we rarely see such undermining of the constitutional structure of American government.
Again, Trump denigrates constitutional government and anyone who fuflills his or her constitutional duty. Schiff did no more than what the Constitution demands. Trump's implicit threat is what a would-be dictator would say.
The Senate voluntarily ceded its constitutional authority to hold the president to account. Senate Republicans willfully violated their oath of office and undermined constitutional government. The system of checks and balances depends on each institution defending its own prerogatives. The Senate, to serve the worst president in my lifetime, threw that away.
This is about the politicization of everything to serve Trump's personal interests. He wants unblinking loyalty to him, not to the Constitution as these officials pledge. He's an out of control would-be dictator.
A heated comment in the context of all else that has gone on recently hardly rates a blip on the radar.
The guilty do as they do. But more seriously, impeachment is a rare event and thus the notion of stipulating normality becomes difficult.
Thought I answered this? He's guilty. It is important. It should be normal to do in such a case.
Normal because Trump has easily met criteria for impeachment.
International relations of African countries
Assassinating officials of foreign countries is absolutely unacceptable, however disagreeable the may be. The US tried to assassinate Castro and failed and its likely supported other efforts, but this case also was generally considered by the international community to violate laws and norms on which international relations depend.
For the president to overturn a judgment of Gallaghers' peers in a court martial is totally unacceptable as it undermines military justice and the effectiveness of US soldiers operating in difficult situations. The Secretary of Navy showed courage but thee silence of the Secretary of Defense was` frightening.
The vote itself is not necessarily abnormal, but voting without any serious hearing or deliberation of the charges indicates that separation of powers, an essential feature of US democracy, is not functioning in any meaningful way.
There were numerous witnesses who defied subpoenas from the House of Representatives who had evidence that was pertinent to the impeachment trial who should have been heard; the trial itself was a farce for a democratic clountry.
This seems to be a normal legislative action, whether one considers it to be right or not.
If this were truly an issue of health, it might have been normal, but it was also part of a pattern of creating barriers to entry in the US for other reasons as well.
Politically motivated actions by the Attorney General and of great concern, and Barr has shown himself to be a puppet of Trump rather than an independent judicial agent enforcing the ,law impartially.
The Medal of Freedom is supposed to be an award recognizing extraordinary service to the country as a whole, not to reward a political crony.
International conflict management and negotiations.
A very good set of questions - keep asking them as democracy in the US continues to be as risk!
Question a bit ambiguous-- are we being asked to rate whether the actions Trump took are normal or abnormal, or whether the vote to impeach is normal or abnormal? And abnormal in previous screen suggested a violation of rules/norms-- the actual vote follows rules and norms, even if the action the vote was about was a violation (like the pentagon paper).  I think I understand this correctly, but maybe adding a different phrase-- "rule-abiding" or something?
Good luck  Be sure to thank those who participate when you publish
Again, I'm not an expert in impeachment but this move struck me as entirely within her rights; if I am mistaken, then I would code it as "abnormal." Given the rarity of impeachment proceedings, however, they are all "abnormal" in an important sense.
The SEALS refused his promotion and were for his punishment. A shameful instance of Trump's yearning for "toughness" becoming policy; truly the mark of an a moral, if not outright evil, regime.
Absolutely beyond the pale response to standard Congressional oversight. Another indication of disdain, or even an understanding, of our Constitution and the rule of law.
Fuck Alan Dershowitz. He's a blowhard far beyond his sell-by date, grasping for relevance. Ignore him. Important only insofar as it reveals how difficult it is for real experts to defend Trump's actions.
I am not an expert in public law or jurisprudence (I suppose those are the fields that deals with such things most closely?), but it strikes me as truly extraordinary and quiet significant as a reflection of the disdain of this administration for the rule of law and, by extension, American democracy.
Normal stuff- this is within their ambit, and public health understandings change over time.
Abnormal only because of the contingent circumstances of CoVid-19; any administration would have done the same.
Normal stuff: visit the troops. Ain't no thang.
He wasn't the only one honored, and at least a few of these medals each time reflect the predilections of the "winning" side. Still, it's unusual that it was given to *such* a divisive rabble-rouser. That said, it is also understandable insofar as RL is a pioneer for the current right wing echo chamber on which Trump depends. I tend to see these symbolic moves as telling but ultimately superficial, and with Trump almost certainly an intentional distraction to "own the libs," so I only rate it "semi-important."
Modern Political Thought, German Political Thought, American Pragmatism
Thanks for doing this -- I always enjoy reading the reports. Keep up the good work!
Unprecedented response but needed in case of pandemic
significant lowering of standards for medal
Also shocking that Chief Justice did not respond to this, but did respond to Chuck Shumer's comments.  Seems to show partisanship toward President.
Good luck! Perhaps leave space for comment on question about living in a non-democracy.  As an Africanist, I have often lived in a non-democracy for my work and have loved being there.  That does not mean however that I want the US or other countries not to be democratic.
Legally exercising separation of powers.
The vote followed constitutional law.  The lack of witnesses was not illegal but unprecedented.
The executive branch is not above the law.
Public health is a core responsibility of govt.  It was the KEY reason for more centralized govts forming in the first place in our modern era, 1600s.
Public health officials recommended such restrictions of movement.  But increasing controls and not relinquishing all of them, after a pandemic is over, is a feature less democratic governments.
Protection of most citizens' retirement option.
All presidents appoint their cronies (except noticeably, Lincoln's "team of rivals" and a few other examples from a few other presidents, e.g. Obama).  However, the crony is most often highly qualified (education and experience) for the appointed job.
Checks and balances are core to the federal govt functioning in ways that reflect USA diversity.
Please email, beyond simple posting, your results and your analysis. Thank you.   The separation of politics from economics remains a false separation, after more than 100 years. Please consider questions relating to the economy.  Inequality, based in corporate power, destroys democracy more thoroughly than one president.
International Organizations and International Human Rights
This is tough since there is no 'normal' with impeachment. I don't really have a frame of reference for this, either in terms of its normality or its importance. But "Don't Know" wasn't an option!
Hate-mongering talk radio host given nation's highest honor
I have mixed feelings about this because the target would have done the same to us sooner or later, if he hadn’t been taken out.  It would have been better to get the action to Congress first.
He went against a duly constituted adjudicative decision, again scoffing at the rule of law.
This is the sort of thing Congress is supposed to do, despite corporate lobbying against the health of the country.
Nothing wrong with that, but his anecdotal approach to combatting the coronavirus threat has opened the floodgates of the pandemic.  He squandered two months' time that could have been used for preparation, so that his cronies could cash out of the stock market before the news of the pandemic became widespread.
Just another distraction thrown up so that his base would have something to focus upon instead of his illegal actions exposed in the impeachment process.
A terrible example of Trump and his allies thinking they are above the law.  It’s all about loyalty to Trump, a classic Fascist move.
Reminiscent of the "Saturday Night Massacre" from the Nixon Administration, which even the GOP eventually wouldn’t support.  We are worse off now.
The administration and the GOP have surrendered judgment and will support anything Trump does or wants.  It is essentially OK with a dictatorship.
Justices shouldn’t be singled out like that, although the GOP did it, too, in the late 1960's when Abe Fortas was forced to step down under GOP partisan attacks.  It was a stupid move by the Dems, and Schumer later apologized.
Environmental law, policy, and regulation
Career DOJ employees saw the prosecutors' recommendations as being excessive and the judge did not have to follow them anyway--totally unimportant and blown out of proportion.
Every administration does this--look at the role of Schedule C appointees as White House liaisons going back more than 40 years. Completely normal behavior--we might not like who is on which lists, but this isn't unprecedented.
The DNI position is relatively unimportant--doesn't really control resources, personnel, or operations. And the real influence in the IC is from DoD, which controls the most resources, personnel, and operations. Even when the CIA director was nominally head of the IC, he/she had no influence because couldn't control budgets! So who is in the position is far less important than the structural weakness of the position itself.
Ginsberg has made some pretty pointed statements about the president, both before and after the 2016 election, that, at face value, could be seen as making objective evaluation of cases directly involving the president difficult; whether that warrants recusal is worth a discussion, though unlikely to actually lead to recusal. Sotomayor has not made as many or as direct statements.
The timing of that part of the process is not terribly relevant to the process, especially because it is a political process and not a legal one that would, otherwise, require stricter due process considerations.
This sort of interference severely undermines the nation's commitment to the rule of law and international standards of human rights and the laws of warfare. In this case, it did not involve the correcting of an injustice or a reasonable consideration of earned clemency.
Context matters -- if it involves constitutional abuse of power, the Senate ought to be capable of rising above partisanship in this area.
Some exceptions to complying to all subpoenas do exist. However, the scale of executive branch resistance to legislative oversight is extremely broad, largely unprecedented, and contrary to essential constitutional norms.
It has not occurred in the conventional way and it has been influenced by political considerations that are unrelated to normal economic principles and goals but it is, also, part of an ongoing process of negotiation that is normal to the political system.
The fact that the Justice Department has the option to override the recommendations of its prosecutors is reasonable in theory. However, the way it currently has been applied appears to be highly politicized and inappropriate.
Political retaliation should be prevented by law.
It may be motivated by political considerations (and, thus, potentially undermines the reputation of the award) but it is not essential to the democratic process.
Context matters and the current administration clearly is not normal.
Lawyers will say anything that they think will get the client off. There are virtually no consequences for lawyers making up complete bull$#!t.
Important for public health, not for politics.
This was abnormal because it is so rare, but not abnormal in the way everything happened.
The impeachment process itself was appropriate and Constitutional.  The fact that it was necessary is abnormal.
This is important work.  Please keep it up.
any time the gov't meddles in economics, it's important. But, it's also not unexpected.
much of what the current administration is doing would be blatant corruption in many other countries.
Only abnormal because it shouldn't have happened in this case. Normal, mostly, otherwise.
Only mostly important because they seem to be ignoring his request.
Again, true by definition. Pandemics are not normal. Responses to them are important and not normal.
These are difficult questions to answer. Impeachment is not normal. So it's hard to know whether actions in response to impeachment are normal. So I've just given mid-point answers.
By definition, impeachment is important. In practice, it is not normal.
It is not normal for presidents to have their own affairs heard by the supreme court. So their responses to it are not normal. Their responses are important because they involve top officials in two branches of govt.
Asking whether empircally abnormal events are normal or abnormal is odd. There is only one empircally accurate response.
The facts that led to the impeachment were extremely abnormal, but non-removal is normal and partisan votes on removal are very normal.
The statement was bad, but by itself is not that important. The fact it could be walked back is evidence of this.
Modern political theory and constitutional law
The normal/abnormal questions were hard to disentangle from the larger context. The set of facts leading to impeachment were very abnormal, but taking those as given, many of the individual steps of the process were not necessarily that abnormal.
mathematical modeling of international crises
It's not business as usual (I hope), because the Senate Republicans clearly set their partisan priorities ahead of making a dispassionate decision about what Trump did. Senate rules are squishy and McConnell takes full advantage of that, as with the derailing of Merrick Garland.
I think there can be circumstances under which the Senate would reasonably decide they have heard enough witnesses to proceed with a fair trial. However, I don't think that's what happened in this case. At all.
It's a kind of high-profile health regulation we don't see that often. Given all that has come out about smoking and big tobacco in recent years, I'm not surprised Congress did this. I doubt it's going to have any impact on constituent support.
I'm sure it's important because of the scope of the consequences and their real impact on people saving for retirement. However, I don't know enough about this to say how and how much this diverges from what we already had to say whether it's business as usual in any meaningful sense. So I chose "borderline".
I'm not surprised that Trump fired people who testified against him. I would expect any president to do that.
Not really. Given the current pandemic, the impeachment seems like a long time ago!
The US political environment is highly polarized, but it should not affect legislative accountability of the executive.
That is a gross interpretation of "public interest" to say the least.
In order for checks and balances to be effective, each branch must accommodate/cooperate with the others' requests.
A trade deal would not have been necessary (of this magnitude) with a less conservative approach.
In line with other substance restrictions, but against the age of adulthood/autonomy.
The act itself was, unfortunately, characteristic of US behavior at this point, but the decision-making process was highly abnormal, and the lies told by the administration to retroactively justify the act were downright Orwellian.
Everyone is so obsessed with being on the lookout for "the next Hitler" that they forget about the 444 legislators who voted for the Enabling Act.
This is the height of the abuse of power.
The Republicans in the Senate did not take their constitutional obligation seriously. None of them are fit for a position of public trust.
Carrying out purges based on perceived "loyalty" or "disloyalty" is ruinous for a country. The right likes to hold up Venezuela as some cautionary tale against socialism. It's not. It's a cautionary tale against this kind of loyalty-based formation of government in which people hold their positions by virtue of their willingness to bow to the dictator, not on the basis of their competence and merit.
This one is abnormal in the sense that it is unusual, but normal in the sense that impeachment is the constitutional remedy for presidential abuse of power.
Democracy, Authoritarianism, Civil-Military Relations, Latin American Politics
Keep up the good work for as long as you can.
Same as before - the process is "normal" but the incident (impeachment) is not.
Changes to democratic practices in response to emergencies are "normal," but we have to be confident that the democratic practices will return.
It is only abnormal in the sense that impeachment is a rare process. BUT - the process itself was mostly normal (save for the absence of witnesses in the Senate trial and the failure to submit to subpoenas).
Assassination of a top official in a rival government is a serious violation of international norms.
These types of statements undermine norms of civil discourse and encourage violence against political opponents of the president.
I have not heard of this policy.  So, my judgement may be off.
This appears to breach the separation between the JOD and the presidency.  In doing so, it undermines the idea that the DOJ is impartially enforcing the law.
This sounds like something out of an autocracy, not a democracy.
Placing a person with no credentials at the top of the intelligence community is dangerous.
US Defense Policy, International Security, War.
Important for economy and retirement financing, not for politics.
Two comments on the questions: 1) The question about importance of living in a democracy lacks a "compared to what". Would I rather live in a stable, safe semi-democratic regime versus a democracy in the midst of a civil war? Probably. So "absolutely important" could be a ridiculously high bar if interpreted literally. Perhaps compare to cost (non democracy with 1% higher growth, etc). 2) I think some of the questions have a liberal slant that is not surprising given the composition of the academy today.
It's normal in the sense that it's in the Constitution, but it is not normal in the sense that the impeachment power is rarely exercised
public policy; public administration; environmental policy and politics
One of the things I struggle with on the scales is whether I'm scoring the items in an "absolute" sense (e.g., how democratic the country/state is) versus a "relative" sense (compared to other countries. I'm increasingly likely these days to see any instance of "democracy" in the contemporary world as not all that much more than an "effective" instantiation of authoritarianism (because it convinces the public they have a say, when they mostly don't). So, in an absolute sense, I'd rank the U.S. quite low. But relative to "overt" authoritarian regimes, I suppose there is a bit more power to the public here...
Assassinations are illegal, and immoral, and the target will retaliate (hasn't happened yet but it will...)
It is important for the President to respond to any threat to the safety and health of the American public.
Makes for nice video.  Let the troops see the Commander in Chief.
This is just more interference by Trump and his political appointees in the normal operations of agency officials doing their jobs.  There are too many presidential political appointees!  If the Trump presidency hasn't made this obvious, nothing will.
Presidents do have this constitutional power.  Typically, however, they don't use it to send a message to others who might like to speak the truth about the president's crimes.
The career civil service is holding the country together in the face of an avalanche of incompetent and often corrupt political appointees.   There are limits to agency.
Would prefer an appointee who is experienced and knowledgeable, and not a political hack.
It was a vulgar act.  Nobody is surprised any longer if the bar is lowered still further.
The Senator had an emotional moment.  He needs to chill.  That's not easy in an institution run by Senator McConnell or for an activist (but conservative) Supreme Court that seems to disrespect precedent.
public administration and public policy; biopolitics
Massive violation of international law and seriously imperiled US security.
These kinds of actions by the president are dangerous for democracy and lay bare Trump's fascist agenda.
This constitutes a constitutional crisis.
While a pandemic is probably the "best" reason for violating freedom of movement, it's still highly unusual and shows how tenuous our civil liberties are.
This is a very rare thing, which would make it "abnormal" by definition. However, it is clearly part of the constitutional system, so it's not "abnormal" in an anti-democratic sense.
Use of presidential threats against political opponent and member of a co-equal branch. Weakens separation of powers and checks & balances to maintain restraints on Presidential power.
This interpretation of presidential constitutional obligations so politicizes the notion of national interest that it nullifies presidential abuse of powers in her/his own political interest. It hopelessly conflates presidential personal political interest with the national interest.
This clearly was a politicization of the criminal justice process.
Extreme examples of presidential revenge against actors providing crucial information to Congress as it seeks to perform its constitutional duties. This is highly dangerous for protecting congressional powers and limiting a runaway presidency.
It is abnormal in the sense that it occurs rarely in US history. In this case it was a very appropriate use of a constitutional power.
I think this is a very useful project and hope you can continue it.
Everything about what the Senate did in the impeachment was abnormal and important. Checks and balances are pretty much a sham now
The president isn’t above the law. These actions give the impression he is
Business as usual. It’s interstate commerce and people shouldn’t smoke
Banning people who visited a place where a health pandemic started isn’t controversial. Doing so with the racist slant used by this administration isn’t
It’s related to interstate commerce. They’re not forcing companies to based on the question wording. This is business as usual
The president can fire people. Firing people because of their testimony takes it too far
On the one hand it’s a threat to judicial independence. However, the Supreme Court has given up all pretense of being above the political fray and nonpartisan that they maybe they should be threatened
It’s abnormal because it’s not every day we impeach a president.
The charges were practically unprecedented in their importance and severity.  The idea that the president's party in power wouldn't convict the president isn't out of the realm of possibility.  There aren't too many cases, though, so it's hard to determine what is actually "normal."  Unethical would be a better word for it.
The way they got to the deal was very abnormal.  The details of the deal seem to be sort of inconsequential.  But resolving these trade disputes is important.
Nixon and Clinton did similar things, but I don't think this is a desirable behavior and it should not happen.
These types of extrajudicial acts have occurred before, the ways it occurred and the aftermath is very unusual.
While this is within the rights of the president, going against military justice is usually not good. Also, the fact that a lot of the advocacy occurred on Fox news and not through an established process is a problem.
South Asia, Social Movements, Political Violence
Goes beyond normal limits, especially when not even in a state of war. Important because it is provocative and part of a disastrous warmongering approach to Iran.
He is not the only one to state such views (Barr is another). It is a dangerous doctrine that places no limit on corruption or even tyranny.
Normal in that it was in their power not to have witnesses. Not normal in that previous impeachment trials had set a norm of having witnesses. Important because it undermined the standard of unbiased judgment.
Legitimate public policy issue. Legislation could save a lot of lives.
Again, if the norm is the authority to take such actions, this could be considered normal. If the norm is any concern for the appearance of being ethical, it is highly abnormal. It is important because it demonstrates a vindictiveness and lack of restraint that is more appropriate for mafia operations than a democratic government.
The quality of the person in that position is important. His having served as ambassador should not be abnormal. Whether he is qualified is another matter.
It is not out of character for Trump but certainly would be for any normal president. On the scale of shocking actions by this president, this does not rank as very important.
It is normal in the sense that it is a power granted the House. It is abnormal is the sense that it is not intended to be used frequently, and has not been. What is really abnormal is the presidential behavior that gave rise to the impeachment.
South Asian politics, political thought, administrative ethics, public deliberation
Thanks for your continuing to conduct these surveys.
Political violence, politics of identity, democratization
Again, the very nature of impeachment is unusual and not "normal." Apparently, Nancy Pelosi had a variety of reasons for delaying sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate. It is her prerogative to make that decision.
In effect, the US engaged in an act of assassination against an Iranian official. While there were a number of apparently valid reasons given for this, there was little public discussion of the possible implications and ramifications of such an action.
It is inappropriate and wrong for the President of the United States to be personally engaging in ad hominem attacks against a member of Congress for doing his job!
It is difficult to determine what is "normal" regarding an impeachment trial which, but its nature, is unusual. However, given that, it is incumbent upon the Senate to gather all information.
Presidents have often used holidays to make unannounced visits to the troops.
While the Justice Department does have certain discretion regarding sentencing, in this case it appears that the decision was tied to Roger Stone's relationship with the president.
While ambassadors do serve at the pleasure of the president, it is wrong for a president to remove someone for disagreeing with him and/or calling out his wrongdoing.
The Presidential Medal of Freedom is a high honor to be awarded to someone who deserves it, and not because the person supports the view of the president, especially when someone like Rich Limbaugh is generally a divisive figure.
It is highly unusual to vote to impeach a president, even if he is not removed from office. This should not be seen as "normal."
National security, and also gender and security.
I will be very interested to see the results!
I think Democrats are reacting to the degree to which congressional Republicans are enabling Trump and Pelosi was wielding the only bit of power she knew Democrats would have once the process went to the Senate. That said, I think Democrats ought to closely adhere to long-standing standards and norms. For example, Pelosi ripping up the State of the Union address on camera was abnormal and, while not as important as an official action, was unhelpful.
The concern here is not that they voted not to remove Trump from office, but that they consistently refuse to hold him accountable. Congress has been ceding power to the executive for many years, but the degree to which congressional Republicans give this president a green light concerns me greatly and is abnormal.
At this point I'm not sure how much credibility Dershowitz has, but if leaders embrace that assertion, that's very dangerous for democracy.
I think it's important in terms of good health policy.
In the context of the Coronavirus, nothing is normal. Trump's actions seemed problematic in that he was arguing that the virus was not a threat at the same time he was limiting entry to the US.
This rhetoric has become so commonplace as to have little effect--i.e. no one expects Ginsburg or Sotomayor to actually recuse themselves. But, Trump's continued attacks on the rule of law and the judiciary sets a terrible precedent.
American foreign policy, public opinion and foreign policy
There are two subjects to react to in the statement. The first is that the Senate voted regarding conviction in a presidential impeachment case. The second is that it voted negatively in this case. You could say it's abnormal to vote, but normal to acquit a president.
Is this about the tweeting or the evaluation of Schiff?
Are you missing or assuming a valence here--is this a good thing or a bad thing for democracy?
Presidential campaigns and elections, Public opinion
I think you might want to include options for the respondent to indicate whether this was good or bad for democracy. Also, some  options and possibilities might be further explored. I am thinking about the repercussions of the Senate impeachment verdict. Will this cause future Congresses to be more or less inclined to pursue an impeachment? Will it restrain the possible abuses by the House majority of the impeachment power?
It would be nice to have access to the definition of normal here - one can't go back to the first page from here.
Combined with withdrawal of U.S. troops from Northeast Syria, this only inflames conflict in the region and accomplishes nothing of substance for the U.S.
Same as above, except a case of rewarding homicide.
This is normal behavior for Senate under Trump.  The President merits impeachment and conviction on a variety of The violations actions that led to his impeachment, along with many other
Under Trump, this departure from legal procedure is mostly normal, but his presidency and the submission of the Senate majority to his wishes is not normal.
Normal but inhumane.  And inconsistent with treatment of U.S. nationals visiting China.
Beyond the pale, but with only symbolic consequences.
urban politics and American political development
It's abnormal in the sense that it happens rarely, but impeachment is normal in the sense of being within the bounds of formal political institutions and law.
Dems engaging in same problematic rhetoric as GOP with regard to USSC.
isn't this the same question as the prior one?
This was unbelievably shocking to me, as was the lack of outrage in response to this utterance
The details of the deal are not available, so it seems it was another meaningless photo op and chance for the President to act 'presidential'
I think there is a good public health justification for this. I don't think normal is a good term to describe this because it is very unusual to have a pandemic.
I am honestly unsure of whether previous administrations have done this
It seems the authors designed the survey to accomplish a goal of finding that the US is less democratic. The issues and phrasing clearly appeal to left wing anti-trump sentiment.
It is my understanding that overrides might not, generally, be extraordinary.  But the way it was done in this instance - after-the-fact, leading the prosecutors to quit - raises the specter of improper political influence.
Mostly abnormal in that the appointee does not appear to meet the qualifications as laid out in the enacting legislation.
Normal in the sense that the evidence of serious malfeasance was strong and that is what the House is supposed to do in such instances - but, certainly not normal in the typical sense.
Years ago, this would have been alarming.  Unfortunately, our politics have degenerated enough that this now seems fairly tame.  It is symptomatic of the decay of our democracy (i.e., it would not be difficult to uncover much more "over-the-top" comments from any number of federal elected officials).
See previous note about Schumer's comment.
This act was a gross act that undermined the purpose and meaning of the medal.
Middle East, foreign policy analysis, comparative politics
It is hard to say what exactly is normal in the impeachment cycle.  However, the leveraging of the delivery was atypical of the process.  Proved somewhat effective.
The rhetorical approach is novel in the context of impeachment and has bad implications for institutions of governance.  The threat is concerning more than anything.
The "trade war" aspect makes this unique to the recent past.  The actual agreement was not very important in terms of progress on trade balances, etc.
This should be normal, but the state of the legislative process makes is somewhat less than that.  Retirement funding is a critical issue going forward.
The manner in which Vindman was fired was more troublesome than the fact that he was moved out of the position.  The Sondland firing was more typical.
This is jaw dropping, but perhaps not substantively important.  The meaning of the award is quite malleable at this point.  Shame.
The judiciary is now politicized and attacking it is now normalized.  This was never going to be seen as a sincere attack.  Still it is disturbing.
I enjoy it.  It makes me think about critical institutional changes.  I wish I could remember what I said last time, so I could understand our ongoing creeping decline.
Totally flawed reasoning, which I think he realized once it was out of his mouth.
Important as yet another illustration of the president's demand for loyalty leading to sacrificing good public servants
Just another example of unqualified people being named to important positions by this president
The president and others suggest that impeachment will now be common but there is no reason to think that.
Illustrates president's lack of respect for the judiciary
I love this survey. I hope you do it for years to come.
anyone receiving a Presidential pardon has, by definition, done something wrong. The question is: do we really want the President to have such a power especially given that there will be a long list of Trump associates who get these whenever the man himself leaves office. You can reuse this question a bunch of times.
It helps to impeach people for impeachable offenses. Article 2 was the modern day equivalent of the tenure in office act. Article 1 while interesting didn't fall into the categories of impeachable offenses as specified by the Constitution, Now ask about that right to face one's actual accuser in public thingly.....
The Senate makes its own rules. Normal is what the Senate decides and if the voters don't like it ? They can vote their senator out of office next time
We win a long war against tobacco and legalize marijuana ? Normal or abnormal ? Discuss....Raising the age for tobacco use is a good thing but hardly how governments have dealt with tobacco throughout the history of the country
Every President should be surrounded by people with whom they are comfortable period. Donald Trump isn't above or below the law or the same consideration that other executives have gotten. He should have fired more people when he entered office and not been so dependent on holdovers.
This is what happens when a candidate doesn't bother to build a transition team. This kind of thing usually happens before said candidate ever becomes President.
the significance of it is that it continues the cycle of impeachments that we've been on since Watergate. It's now 2-1 Dems in the lead. The Repubs will want to do something about that.
it's always a pleasure to read these and thanks for doing this.
US intelligence agencies information was the basis for President Trump's order. Yet, he ignored the US intelligence agencies findings on Russian interference in the 2016 US election.
The US Senate has never removed a president from office.
The majority of the Senate abdicated its responsibilities by not hearing all pertinent witnesses. It was a sham trial.
His staff had to tell him where Afghanistan is and then he asked where is Asia.
President is destroying our democratic institutions.
Mr. Limbaugh is a partisan hack who is or at least was a drug addict.
What choice does she have when it is to hedge off the abnormal dismissal of the impeachment charges by the senate to avoid the trial they are constitutionally required to hold?
trade deals happen. Trade wars are pretty abnormal since its not 1920 but its not something like the erosion of congressional oversight so....
POTUS's have done this forever. Its symbolic and boosts troop morale.
The fact that this is already occurring in the U.S. means we are in institutional collapse
It has destroyed the value of the medal of honor for every past and future recipient. Rush Limbaugh has done more to destroy American political culture/civility than almost any other single person. Its beyond insulting.
What's abnormal is that w a scandal worse than Watergate, and involving national security, the Republican Party chose to use their control of the senate to protect a lawless president.
Both these Justices were confirmed on 53 votes, without the need for a 60 vote cloture, which neither could have survived because they are ideologues. That's abnormal.
Please add my new email to your list. I've been taking these surveys since they were first implemented and would like to continue.    rbitecofer@niskanencenter.org
Her delay was consistent with the procedures of impeachment.
Impeachment mostly normal though rare because it is a constitutional mechanism.
President is undermining standards of disagreement within the bounds of institutional respect.
Likely would not have changed the vote, but it demonstrates abdication of a crucial democratic function: oversight and transparency.
On it's face, this was normal presidential behavior, but Trump was way behind the curve on this kind of symbolic leadership.
Democrats had no choice. The president's behavior demanded this action.
Senate minority leader's comments were easily misread but are also less important than those coming from the White House. Still, this was irresponsible.
the president undermining the authority of the military and the rule of law is very bad
it promotes an authoritarian view of govt
given the lack of integrity of Republican senators, it's a marginal issue
Important due to a breach of diplomatic protocol.
Mostly unimportant due to procedural peculiarities.
This act showed a blatant disregard for rule of law as practiced within the military. It was one of the many concerning actions by President Trump recently.
The votes reflected the deep partisan divide. Partisanship is not new to the U.S. and not uncommon in other democracies. The degree of it today, however, limits the ability for the legislature to check the executive -- placing much greater importance on the Judicial Branch to do so.
There were too many exceptions to the ban to be an effective deterrent against the COVID-19 virus.
It fits a pattern of placing loyalty ahead of experience and competence. It is more concerning in this case because it is the DNI position.
Attacks on the Courts by the president (or members of Congress) are one the worse examples of taking steps down the path of creeping authoritarianism.
No. My only comment is to pray for the Courts to hold -- and specifically for John Roberts to be the institutionalist we really want to believe that he is.
Controversial usage of the pardoning power is relatively normal among presidents, but typically is not used to pardon people who are clearly guilty of violent crimes (indirectly or directly).
Refusing specific requests is relatively normal, but the blanket obstruction by the Trump administration was completely unprecedented and absolutely anti-democratic in every sense.
This is highly abnormal behavior for a President, but it doesn't really have a major impact at this point given Trump's previous behavior and the fact that the Justices are independent completely from the Executive branch.
Political History and Political Behavior
The pardon is the most unconstrained power the president has.  Maintaining the integrity of the chain of command and the sanctity of rules of engagement is essential to military authority.  With the pardon, Trump signals that political fealty to him is more valuable than the chain of command or military law.
Trump implicitly advocates violence against Schiff, a member of the opposition.  It undermines fundamental democratic norms.
This represented the complete breakdown of the separation of powers in the United States.  The Senate acted as a subordinate of the White House, not as a co-equal branch of government.  It was also an abdication of the Senate's responsibility to try the impeachment charges brought by the House.
Trade deals are traditionally normal politics, but this deal arose from a departure by the Trump administration from a rule-based international order.
Control of borders during a public health crisis is one of the powers of the state.  It is not surprising given the pandemic that borders would be closed.  Other strong liberal democracies have done so as well.
What is abnormal is not the appointment of someone politically friendly to the president, but that this was their only qualification for the job.  It is important because it interferes with public and bureaucratic confidence in accurate, objective information and analysis.
Impact of globalization on both international system and domestic societies.
It is "mostly important" because it is a piece in a larger portrait of this administration's authoritarian character. It signals that cruelty and violence takes precedent over morality. However, there are actions taken by the administration that have further reaching consequences
Hard for Senators to 1) be non-partisan, and 2) expect a 2/3 vote to remove is obtainable.
Another case where citizen rights conflict with public safety.
Removal for political reasons, like nepotism, poisons the democratic well.
Impeachment is rare, thus abnormal, but important where warranted.
Remarkably stupid of Trump and aspiration ally authoritarian.
Applications of rational choice models to observable political processes.
This is the same outcome we had in previous impeachments.
European Politics, Parliamentary democracies, legislative oversight
Identity politics and political behavior
The ethics of carrying out airstrikes have been important for multiple administrations.  The airstrike on Soleimani is an in line with other questionable presidential decisions (such as airstrikes abroad that have killed American citizens who were fighting as terrorists).
It is the House's responsibility to build a case and subpoena witnesses.
Judicial independence is very important.
Perhaps you could note that events that are 'normal' are not necessarily good for democracy. For example, certain outcomes reflect partisan divisions that are normal in the US, but not good for democracy.
Again, the question as worded is virtually meaningless. An impeachment is rare and abnormal in that sense.  It is part of Constitutional checks and balances and is not abnormal in that sense. It is not unexpected that a Republican Senate would vote against convicting Trump, but is that abnormal?  Nothing about an impeachment is "business as usual" so you need to find a more meaningful way to ask about it.
It may not be surprising, but it is abnormal in the sense that it violates Constitutional checks and balances.
Administrations negotiate trade deals - it is part of their job. Whether China will actually abide by the terms of the deal remains to be seen. The deal may be turn out to be just words on paper, particularly in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.
While this is not "normal" in the sense that we don't often have pandemics of this magnitude, it is normal that an executive would take such steps in the face of such a pandemic.
Since this is only the third time in American history, it is definitely abnormal.  But it is within the House's Constitutional rights and responsibilities, so it is not abnormal in the sense of diverging from constitutional norms.
I don't think the phrasing of the question is helpful.  Since this is only the third impeachment in history, it is abnormal that it happened. It is not abnormal for the House to charge the president in such a circumstance.  Since there were only two impeachments before, there is no "normal" set of charges. The question cannot lead to consistent or meaningful answers as asked.
As I mentioned in several comments, I cannot conceive that questions about the impeachment that ask "is this normal or abnormal" will result in respondents interpreting the question in a consistent or meaningful way.  An impeachment is by definition "abnormal" in the sense that it is rare. So in that sense, anything about it is abnormal. But it is not "abnormal" in the sense that it is outside of Constitutional checks and balances. So in that sense anything about it is not abnormal. But you never specified: in which of those two ways are you expecting us to interpret the questions?
she did not want to do impeachment, was forced by events into it, knew the Senate unlikely to convict, was playing for time, which was smart
debases public discourse by a nasty President
not crucial but sort of important that competing states can agree on trade
good step for health; other issues more important
shows support for troops, usual PR act, like other Presidents
unclear why; might show politicized Dept
retaliation against public servants who told the truth.
Presidents can choose whom they want, but to put an inexperienced loudmouth, detested in Germany, to head the intelligence community is very dangerous
doesn't happen often but important when it does
international human rights, law, organization
Impeachment is not a normal event, but the Senate voting against conviction was completely predictable.
Much of what the president says is without precedent. What is important about this is not the specifics of this case but rather the broader breakdown of comity and limits on what offensive things a politician can say.
This practice has received (deserved) attention during the Trump administration, but this happens with other administrations as well, albeit less brazenly.
When the President ignores military justice and violates the rule of law he takes the country a giant step towards dictatorship
Aaaaa!  We can't have governmental accountability and constitutionally limited government if officials who see and report wrong-doing are removed from office.
Nixon did this, too, and he was impeached!  (although technically not for this, but it was part of the picture)
The Senate's action was abnormal and important in that it was clearly a highly partisan affair that gave little consideration to the facts at hand.
Not clear what the question is asking. Impeachment is "abnormal" in the sense that it is very rare.
We did not involve allies in the action/provide them with advance notice.
Is it inappropriate to equate  all (and perhaps any) behavior designed to influence an election with the public interest
Limbaugh has a history of opposing access for groups of citizens; his behavior is inconsistent with the values associated with the Medal.
violates all understandings of the separation of power
Soleimani, however much a pain in the neck in Yemen, was a hero to Iran and fought our mutual enemy, al-Qaedi and the like in Iran, and we killed an Iraqi military officer in the process, increasing hatred for the US in both counties while pushing Iran towards povery and nuclear war. A worse policy is inconceivable. Yemen is complicated, but we should not back the Saudis.
This rationale justifies all Presidential action and renders impeachment null and void. Why not just have the Army shoot Democrats? Why not deny allies arms to defend itself to pressure them to mount a false investigation of domestic political opponent? Where is the line? Perhaps we shoud not impeach presidents for lying about oral sex. I'm a moderate, but I do see off-the-charts partisanship coming mostly from Republicans. It seems the party must lose power to allow development of a conservative party.
It's legitimate and good politics per se. I would be more conerned about what he said and his competency to execute a needed policy.
Please, this is not officials, this is Trump, violating historic norms of justice and undermining the rule of law. And it is one of many cases.
The problem is not the lists per se, but the anti-conservative, pro-wealth, pro-sectarian, hateful nature of the distinctions. And I am keeping this VERY brief. We have lost the legitimacy of the Adams-Jefferson debate and its evolution.
Per se, normal. However, it is irrelevant to the substantive issues.
I agreed with Meuller and the House Democrats because of overwhelming factual evidence.
This is abnormal for Schumer and should not be emphasized compared to the fountain of lies and incompetency coming from the White House. The more important question is how many educated and informed observers who are not particularly ideologically committed agree with my assessment--which I have never said before in 60 years of observation.
Isolated, not important. But it is part a pattern of a broad demagogic attack on democracy to establish a whimsical, dangerous, ignorant one-man rule. I did not think the US federal government could go downhill so fast, with Republicans and a minority of voters, empowered by an anti-democratic electoral college, eroding the legitimacy of the Constitution.
citizen policy ad complex advocacy; sustainblity of whole economy including non-monetized values.
I'd like my coments to public even if you are not willing to use my name.
It is normal (i.e. to be expected) that the party would support their president.  It is extraordinarily unfortunate.
More important than one might think given Trump's bad trade policies that made this so vital.
But look at the mess he created that we are in.
Since the rise of the imperial presidency, we (all of us) have conceded more and more power to whoever occupies the office. What did we think would happen?
I know from nearly personal and personal experience that this is not entirely new, but the reach and the openness certainly is. Listen, if it happened in the Carter White House, it can happen anywhere, don;t kid yourself.
elections matter..so does the R's complete and utter subjugation to Cheeto Jesus and the D's moral bankruptcy
this was all cheapened long ago and this seems a logical end to the utter debasement...it has always been a sham.
they keep getting better, but still start from a global north, liberal, bourgeoisie (not used here as an insult, though I am happy to do so), premise. Imagine bigger, broader, better--you can do it!   Seriously, appreciate y'all
European Political Economy; Comparative Institutions
borderline crazy, while supporters of the president applaud it
so unfortunate, in this country of rights to debate what women can do with their bodies and minds
I might disagree w/ the decision, but historically the executive branch has been afforded extra deference during national emergencies. So if you're asking about "normal" vs. "not normal," this seems closer to historically "normal." Doesn't mean it's morally right, or good policy, but you aren't asking about morality or policy logic.
I think I would need to know more about DOJ norms to answer this with greater confidence. This case got attention and sounded really bad, but I wonder how often this kind of thing happened in the past and didn't get attention. Again - you are asking about normal v. not normal - not right v. wrong.
I think there's a huge distinction between political appointees and civil servants. If you are asking about creating a list/threatening removal of of "disloyal" political appointees, I would say that's less troubling than creating/threatening a list of "disloyal" civil servants. I wasn't sure how to answer this question.
I care more about policy, but symbolism matters a lot when it comes to the president.
Mostly normal because it's grounded in evidence. But not fully normal because impeachment is not an everyday occurrence.
you're still not asking about partisanship, pretending that it does not matter that the researchers filling out this survey are 8:1 democrats v. republicans, while asking about very charged partisan issues; seems odd.
The violation of the chain of command and military discipline was very unusual and detrimental to an effective military.
This was an unusual event, but fully within the institutions of US government.
Threatening opponents with political retribution is not normal but not abnormal. The assumption in many quarters that this was a threat of physical violence rather than political-electoral retribution was as out of place as the tweet itself.
The conflation of personal political interest and public interest is a sharp break with longstanding political norms.
It was not consistent with the (sparse) past practice. Moreover, it reflected the partisan nature of the proceeding rather than deliberative nature.
The appointment of a former ambassador would be normal. Another acting DNI (and yet another acting senior official) is abnormal and important in the break from the expected process of governance.
While controversial figures have received high honors from Presidents (and Congress), awarding this medal to a controversial, highly partisan and currently active individual is a clear and profound violation of norms.
Unusual but not abnormal. Within the expected mechanism of checks and balances.
Random tweeting to call people names is abnormal no matter the topic.  It is important because the President makes all of us look bad when he does this - which is unfortunately all the time.
Semi-important because he has never done this before but suddenly did - for optics only.
Any legislation that merely "encourages" is not important because it really doesn't do anything at all.
Justice Department has lost its independence and is now attempting to be a rubber stamp for the President's preferences.
Takes away the value of receiving the award from everyone who actually earned it and deserved it.  This was a mockery.
Quote is taken out of context -- which is typical of Bright Line Watch bias.
ethnic politics, nationalism, politics and religion
Again, she should have done this earlier, and with far greater scope of culpabiity than she did, despite the refusal of the White House to respond to subpeonas.
Assassination of government leaders is a dangerous, destabilizing precedent for the international order, and severely undermines American soft power -- even though it has been countenanced in the past by U.S. leaders.
Flagrant abuse of the pardon capability, and this is only the tip of the iceberg.
The "president" is a would-be autocrat laying waste to the institutions of government, for the sake of his own power and that of his criminal syndicate of a party.
The merit-based federal government institutions with qualified civil servants are being corrupted by installation of politically-driven cronyism and partisan incompetence, and a climate of fear of retaliation.
Entirely constitutional, even if unusual, thus "normal." But House Democrats failure to impeach on other issues of clear constitutional violations made it "abnormal" abdication of constitutional obligations.
It might better have captured the analysis of the implementation of impeachment, which I believe was ineptly and irresponsibly handled by Pelosi and House leadership -- to maximal political and constitional ill effect.
Kind of confusing question. Obviously impeachment is not "normal," but a Senate controlled by one party siding with a president of the same party is normal.
These questions force complex issues influenced by important dimensions of context into simplistic, unidimensional scales.  The answering system is simplistic and subjective to the point of being meaningless.  They provide little more than an index of undifferentiated political happiness.
See above.  It is more journalism than political research.
Abnormal in the way Mitch McConnell ran the show. But normal in the sense that this happened in the other presidential impeachment cases.
On the one hand, Trump's tweets get way too much attention, but on the other hand it is an important indicator of Trump's lack of appropriateness for the job of president and of the negative aspects of his personality.
The quote is taken out of context. Knowing the full set of circumstances that he is referring to is what makes it abnormal.
What is important is whether he had any qualifications for the job. But that is not reflected in the way you phrased the question.
Normal in that they were doing their constitutional duty as dictated by the circumstances--not in that it should be a frequently recurring process for partisan purposes.
As noted, I found several of the questions vague and open to interpretation.
National Security; Public Administration; Political Philosophy
Probably unimportant because so ludicrous, but also the side making it won (granted, probably for different reasons) so it could set some precedent of argument.
Not really sure what this delay accomplished.
Such acts I have long-term Consequences.
Leaders who refuse to be accountable threaten democratic government.
Leaders who banish all who disagree are really tyrants and have no place in democratic governments.
While a highly rare event, members of the House could not just ignore the president’s behaviors, especially those threatening the balance of power and national security.
As noted above, members of the House had no alternative than to try to make the president accountable. They could just not ignore the presidents undemocratic
Thanks for continuing this important survey.
Demonstrates lack of regard for rule of law. Privileges partisan political gain over respect for military chain of command, justice system.
The Senate's refusal to call witnesses or examine evidence is an abnormal abdication of its Constitutional duty, apparently motivated by partisan considerations.
Inflammatory, dangerous, and inappropriate language from a US president.
Demonstrates lack of regard for rule of law, respect for chain of command.
Blurring of lines between traditional political appointments such as Ambassadors, and career civil service appointments requiring topical expertise.
Having taken this survey a few times, I think recent developments make it increasingly more difficult to distinguish "abnormal" from "bad."  eg impeachment is an "abnormal" process [it doesn't happen often]; but I think the fact that impeachment hearings happened is good; and I think the fact that the proceedings did not result in Trump's removal from office is bad. Not sure this instrument is able to pick up these nuances.
Breaking of Democratic norms taking place by both parties is not normal. This one ranks lower than some other norm-breaking actions, but still...
Ignoring all evidence of wrongdoing by the President to maintain party unity was never the intent of the impeachment process and the need to hold those in power accountable.
Ceding and conceding oversight powers by one of the branches of government threatens the democracy and constitutional principles of the country. No one should consider this normal or unimportant.
DOJ should serve the interests of the American people as a whole and not the wishes of one individual.
Punishment for speaking truth to power is not normal-- even though the president has the power (within his authority) to do it (spirit of the power v. the letter of the power).
Democratic norms need to be respected by both political parties.
Again, breaking with Democratic norms in a system that relies heavily on the norms being respected and followed.
Hard to defend a definition of "trial" that lacks witness testimony.
The rationale given may have been transparently stupid / political, but the action itself is fairly standard across various situations.
Tough. Totally within presidential prerogatives but the intention is to stifle dissent...
The House action was fully in line with institutional rules.
International cooperation / law / environment
Impeachment is abnormal and important. Thus all things importantly connected to it are at least somewhat abnormal/important.
This is not part of a pattern of behavior (unlike with Trump and his administration). Therefore I consider it less abnormal/important.
International Organizations and African Politics
Unfortunately, this also is tied into the animosity between Trump and the Democrats.  We have forgotten that the House was intended by the Framers and the first voice of the people and largely empowered to conduct its business as it sees fit.  Not that it is always right.  A minor skirmish in a larger skirmish context.
The bastard deserved to die.  If you have illusions of fair trial and all that, I think you suffer from acute and perhaps fatal idealism.  However, I would not admit to anything but the strike was authorized.  It's the right choice but one compelled by circumstances.  Not proud of such a policy but then again believe it might be required, that is, to protect our troops.
The charges, at best, were marginal, likely against the Framers' understanding of the purpose of the process.  A positive vote would have politicized the process going forward, which would have damaged the system in more ways than one.
There is a case to be made, that is, interest in the health of the young.  Personally, I consider the issue one for each state to address.
The first obligation of any elected representative is the protection of his or her constituents.  While I would certainly support a wider view of citizenship (in the human race) in extraordinary time an elected official should not put their own ego and intellectual arrogance above the general good of the population.
Who else would you name--a political opponent.  Yes, you might, but that would be unusual.  You have to trust your people and their loyalty.
There were several ways to look at the evidence, and, only a clear, overwhelming evidence of a much more serious allegation would warrant the possibility of repeated impeachments by both parties.  The bottom line on that score seemed to evince more hostility to the President than any real intent to protect the fabric of American Government
Trump is Trump.  Not the most sophisticated student of American Government.  But Ginsberg should be careful.  She is on record of making intemperate and rather arrogant remarks.  While I would not ask her to automatically recluse herself she should be honest about approaching the issue.  She has herself to blame for that.  Sotomayer simply has a different perspective than Trump.  Still she has called attention to herself because of her policy disagreements with the President.  But then again, the justices take too many policy decisions out of the people's hand in the name of "interpretation" which masks their assumptions of greater wisdom than the American people--and the Framers of the Constitution.
If I recall in the first set of questions (the one I skipped) the question assumed a point of view, that is, that the role of the judiciary is to constrain executive power.  There is some truth in that observation, but the question was not precisely drawn.
violates the assassination ban; sets bold precedent for other countries to use against us
In Nixon's impeachment, the president's party took the evidence seriously; in Clinton's impeachment, the opposition party had unlimited money, staff and time to investigate many matters that were private rather than abuse of power; the Republican's unwavering support of Trump prior to the impeachment process and their extreme conduct during the process proved that they had no interest whatsoever in the merits of the accusations.
same as above: the Republicans voted to suppress evidence
expands, in an unconstitutional way, what executive privilege means
the public deserved an airing of the evidence and the arguments pro and con
He was quoting Kavenaugh's words back to him.
the circumstances were abnormal: most presidents do not engage in conduct that rises to the level of an impeachable offence; the process was used normally, given the evidence and actions the president committed.
racism, sexism, anti-Latinx; presidents should not jawbone any court decisions;
That is the president threatening (possibly with violence) a member of Congress.
He essentially puts the president above the law.
It destroys one of the foundations of our democracy.
Selection of the Director of National intelligence should be competence based.
While I do not disagree with him, leaders of various branches of the government should not be attacking each other in teh ways that are done in today. They should have respect for one another.
The President does not believe in checks and balances.
Modern, contemporary, and American political theory
The delay was in response to the Senate's unwillingness to entertain witnesses during the trial. Thus, it was justified.
This was an assassination, plain and simple. This should not be done except to thwart an immanent threat. There was no immanent threat.
Trump clearly engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors. The acquittal without hearing key witnesses, such as John Bolton, was an abdication of the Senate's responsibility.
Many countries have restricted travel from infected areas. This was a justified response.
Roger Stone was convicted in a fair trial. Career DOJ prosecutors suggested the original sentencing. The political appointees in the DOJ intervened for political purposes, since Stone was an ally to Trump.
Shumer should have spoken more carefully, emphasizing the political fallout of an anti-abortion decision, without naming particular justices.
The impeachment of the President was completely justified, given his attempt to smear a political opponent by pressuring a foreign government to investigate said opponent.
Democratic Theory; Representation; Race and Ethnicity in democratic politics
Again, regardless of the ultimate outcome, when strong evidence exist of abuse of power it is important to bring attention to it and to investigate it.
Important as a first step. Jury still out as to whether normal trade relations will be reestablished.  Outlook not very good.
Weak scientific evidence that travel bands have substantial impact on transmission at this stage of a pandemic.
Extremely troubling to the extent that it impacts career civil servants.
Naming an ally is not that unusual.  Qualifications of utmost importance in this position.  Very questionably in this case.
Quite the example of a morally upstanding American?!?
There must be a check on Presidential abuse of power, successful or not.
Poor choice of wording on Shumer's part, but sentiment expressed is valid.
this is a normal but not usual response to an abnormal situation (an impeachment trial without even the pretense of being unbiased)
poisonous to democratic political culture--undermines public trust by painting opponents and criticism as wholly illegitimate and enemies of the people
Honestly, I imagine most administrations do this. What's abnormal here is how the Trump administration makes sure that everyone knows what it's doing.
Voter behavior and political institutions
Second most powerful Legislative check on Exec power. (First is Leg budgetary power.) Definitely normal in the sense of constitutional politics.
Well within the foreign policy power of the President, particularly when administrations from BOTH parties have: labeled the group S leads as a "terrorist organization"; threatened bombing campaigns against the Iranian govt; and imposed sanctions on the country.
Rhetoric after most actors have updated beliefs about how little Presidential threats on social media mean.  T threatens journalists and media companies but that rhetoric hasn't been matched with action to curtail the operations of journalists or news media (with perhaps the exception of barring some individual journalists from T's live press briefings.)
Senate majority, not minority, voted for it. I think it was a party-line vote. Lots of those in the Senate. Plus the House was to do the investigation. The abnormal part was Executive refusal to submit to any Congressional review and threaten to hold up the issue for 12 months in courts.
Leaders of both parties do this all the time.
If this were two parties going after each other, that would be more normal. But its a bunch of political appointees going after career civil servants -- who are all probably Republicans (I think Comey, Mueller, and McCabe would be classified as conservatives and Republicans of the Bush/McCain/Romney variety??)  Attacking elites in your OWN party when you bend the law is definitely not normal.
Using official duties to curry favor with a media personality who is also a personal friend.  That's weird but not necessarily more weird than a president pardoning a campaign contributor.
Obstruction was shown twice over (Schiff and Mueller). Both parties impeach over obstruction/perjury.  The abnormal part was the abuse of power and probably more stuff that Schiff never took up to define as a crime.
Definitely weird, not normal. But probably just rhetoric. If we saw someone -- either in coordination with president or not -- using this threat to instigate attempt to assassinate the justices, that would be important.
Presidents should not use the pardon power to interfere in military judicial proceedings, unless there were serious  derelictions of constitutional rights.
It just happened to save American lives.
unless you ask questions about appropriate behavior on the part of Schumer and Pelosi, this is appearing to be a biased survey
Trump's behavior, while arguably inappropriate, was way below any standards for impeachment, and has set a terrible precedent.
I am gratified by this question.  Frankly, if Trump can be impeached for an inappropriate phone call, this act of intimidation towards a member of the Supreme Court is even more impeachable
International security, counter-insurgency, Asian Studies
There was only one question directed at the behavior of Democrats. The way the questions were posed struck me as biased.  How could there not have been any questions on the appropriateness of the conduct of Nancy Pelosi, which was utterly shameful.
Conviction for impeachment crimes has not happened.
Favoritism toward a presidential crony by the Justice Dept.
The assassination of enemies is not exactly unheard of. But usually it is done with stealth so as not admit responsibility. And usually it is done against non-state terrorists. However, Suleimani was a military officer of a state even though his activities were to support non-state groups in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Claiming credit for this assassination of such a high ranking military officer was obviously authorized to bring domestic credit to the President.
Of course, for Trump himself, personal insults are a way of life. So, in that sense, this is not at all abnormal behavior for him. But it is abnormal for the most part in the norms of political interaction at the elite level outside of campaigning. The implications of these personal attacks challenge even further the deteriorating norms of political discourse in our society and sharpens its divisions.
In my personal view, the second article of impeachment was even more important than the first. The President essentially as a norm claimed that he is above scrutiny and that no one who works or worked in his administration or was a part of the permanent government would be allowed to testify before Congress. This changes drastically the relationship between the branches of government and sets the stage for executive dictatorship with the abject compliance of the President's party in Congress. This tells us not only that the institutional independence and co-equality is under attack but that norms of constitutional governance are so easily eroded.
This would not be the fist time that there have been temporary shutdowns of travel from places that have undergone epidemiological challenges. The Chinese authorities take the temperatures remotely of all international travelers at their airports and have done so for some time. However, this President's xenophobic demagoguery and the labeling of the Coronavirus as a "Chinese" virus makes it hard to believe that this behavior had credible motives.
I must have missed something, but I hadn't heard anything of this. So, I do not have an opinion about it. I don't understand how a defined contribution fund can even be turned into a defined benefit one.
Every president wants the career service to be loyal to their objectives. Most understand that there are some limits to their behavior and to retribution. The current president demands absolute loyalty, not just on matters of policy but on matters of the legality of his behavior. This is not a good sign for the continuance of constitutional government, especially when this president's party has acted as an enabling force for lawless behavior.
Well, this isn't exactly unheard of. Remember the Nixon Presidency, and I suspect it wasn't the only one. But it is a bad sign for governing in a system that seems to have an excess of politics in its most venal and demagogic sense and an insufficiency of expertise and legal antecedents in its governance. The so-called "deep state" is actually a reservoir of expertise, a conservator of precedent, and a source of binding desired behavior to legal limitations. What it indicates is a deep disregard for lawful governance and a desire to turn the frog into a prince. (Apologies to Machiavelli.)
If we include Nixon who wasn't formally impeached but resigned because he no doubt was going to be, we have seen three presidents in the last 45 years impeached or virtually so. This is unusual in our longer history, but I am not sure precisely what it says. Is it that presidents have become more willing to extend their power beyond previously prescribed boundaries? Or that the most base political motives are at work? Or that these cases are different from one another? Or is it the case that presidents should be impeached for lawless behavior more regularly? After all, unlike a parliamentary system where an existing government can be thrown out of office when it loses the confidence of a majority of parliament, we don't have that outlet in our system. Perhaps the impeachment process should be used more frequently than less so. However the 2/3 majority requirement to convict in the Senate probably renders that unlikely even if justifiable. There is no doubt that the president's party, whomever that president is, will likely stand by their president for political purposes so this exercise may be one of futility. But the question remains: Can a president be held accountable for corrupt and lawless behavior? We don't have a good solution to that problem in our system.
Another ex cathedra pronouncement from this President. Of course, this is important for the now sadly deteriorating norms of our system but unimportant in regard to the behavior of either justice since they are insulated from this president's non-stop invective against his political opponents and even against his recently felled appointees in his administration.
Executive Politics (Presidential Leadership & Bureaucracy)
It speaks poorly of the collective behavior of Congress that such maneuvers are deemed necessary.
Assassination by our government should not happen, but it has become a common practice.  That this has become normal practice is important -- and sad.
Conflict over subpoenas in many areas is common/normal. Refusal to cooperate in an impeachment is not.
Regulation is common when there is publicity about an agreed-upon problem.
In the context of the President's disdain for intelligence and his penchant for using government to further his own interests, it is important that he has named someone highly partisan to the position.  It will be bad for our intelligence capability and the country.  It is typical/normal for him, abnormal for most presidents.
Sadly, it is part of a pattern (going back to the Clinton impeachment) of using impeachment because the opposition doesn't like the President.  The partisan nature of both sides is also worrisome.
It is one of too many displays of inappropriate behavior by Mr. Trump.
The implication of this question is not very clear
For a president without authoritarian tendencies and generally committed to liberal democracy (e.g. GW Bush or Obama), this would matter and would raise questions about excessive presidential power, but would not in and of itself be an authoritarian warning signing.  For Trump, it is more significant because this action must be understood in broader context of president with authoritarian ambitions.
hard to believe this is happening and ought to be shocking
on the last 2 questions about impeachment, I believe the result indicates that (1) impeachment is a dead letter and (2) the constitutional system has failed.  In a functioning liberal democracy, a leader like Trump with clear authoritarian goals who was caught trying to coerce a foreign country into helping to smear his political rival would be removed from office.  Whether this will embolden future presidents depends on whether future presidents have authoritarian tendencies.  If they do, like Trump they will likely see this as assurance that they can undermine liberal democracy with impunity, so long as their political party remains loyal to them.  This indicates the Madisonian system has failed--ambition does not counteract ambition when members of Congress place personal loyalty to a would-be authoritarian ahead of their constitutional duties.
Equating public and private interest as being consistent with constitutional imperatives to uphold and execute the laws of the United States, including the checks of the House and Senate on Executive power, is abnormal and important as it contributes to a narrative that undermining democratic institutions is normal and not important.
The negotiations are largely normal, the process that got us to the place where the negotiations were needed was abnormal and important.
Nothing in the administration's response to COVID 19 has been normal and all of it has been important or mostly important.
Legislature's regulation of the market place is normal.
Continuation of efforts to undermine the legitimacy of all branches of government other than the executive's own personal authority is the path to tyranny.
Russia, IPE, international law, security studies
International Relations of the Middle East
This was not good, political interference with the military.
This is abnormal but this is a once a century event.
Political parties, rhetoric, political culture
We do not have a large universe to judge by, but timing is important given the circumstances
Most presidents resist being held accountable
For the well connected things don't usually get this far; cahrges are dropped, lessened, etc.
President's party not playing by the rules
Not unusual to try and hold court accountable; typical of 50s & 60s certainly. Douglas and Warren were called out
Took change of house leadership to bring this about
Lot's of narcissistic presidents, but this one is hopelessly spoiled
screens too large; reduce so limited need to scroll.
Part of this is Dershowitz being Dershowitz, but for someone retired from an elite position to take such a blatantly aconstitutional position is frightening. Fortunately, the ridiculous nature of the position probably did not convince anyone and further undermined Dershowitz's credibility.
How can checks and balances exist without this rather standard mechanism?
The importance of this remains to be seen, and the necessity for it was manufactured.
The President does something correct and correctly. Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then.
Again, this is largely symbolic politics, but perhaps the president could learn something from such a trip. Not making the trip would be more important than making it.
For multiple generations now we have been told that governing is not a skill.  Pres. Trump is the antithesis of this point, and in this particular position, the denigration of expertise is crucial.
While this is largely symbolic politics, the patently ridiculous nature of the award undermines its value. Still, the president clearly has the power  to do this.
At least the House Followed proper procedure. The fact that the Senate did not remove is not terribly surprising, although the individual rationales were dispiriting.
It serves to undermine the legitimacy of Scotus.
Just the lawyer's statement on its own is unfortunately "more" normal because of the Nixon example.  But if Trump or political institutions like parties actually advance this as a legal or political principle, that's both important and unusual.  The inability to separate private from public gain - hallmark of personalistic authoritarianism.
Advances an expansive, nearly unlimited view of Executive Privilege.
Plenty of other presidents have done this in the past.
There are important questions about whether Trump will get accurate or unbiased intelligence briefings, or whether he'll simply get what he wants to hear.  Definitely bad for U.S. national security decision-making.
While deplorable, case could be made that Limbaugh is a prominent public figure, etc.
Follows Constitutional procedure and one of only a few cases.  Definitely important and normal.
Love it!  Keep doing this important work!
I indicated "abnormal" not because I think it was wrong for the House to do, but because it is so unusual. After all, we have had very few impeachment votes regarding the presidency over the course of American history.
Unfortunately, these types of drone strikes were all too common under President Obama as well. While Obama may not have decided to hit such a key target, he approved thousands of drone strikes.
This is highly abnormal. Trump went beyond the norms with this decision.
Presidents should not be fomenting hatred and polarization.
This is what presidents to to rally morale among the troops.
Again, how can professionals give unbiased opinions if they are subject to this kind of personalism and censorship?
This behavior makes it impossible for civil servants to operate professionally.
Most presidents want to have allies in these positions of advising.
Impeaching a president is never normal. It is and should be exceptional.
I am not sure that legislators should be making comments about SCJ in the press. Schumer may be right, but not good to air these critiques in public. Sounds partisan.
Social movements; criminal violence in Mexico
In this case, while calling out one's political rivals may be 'normal' in the modern presidency, the personal nature and implied threat here depart from what has been normal, contentious, political speech prior to this administration. While the single tweet on its own might be closer to 'mostly unimportant', what makes it at least 'semi-important' -- to my mind -- is the fact that this comment is but one instance in a pattern of rhetoric from the executive that is personally denigrating and threatening. Combined, these instances erode norms that have historically enabled governance to persist even at times when partisan governance is divided.
This should be a normal part of the executive's diplomatic work in a globalized world, though the antagonistic and unpredictable nature of the negotiations is not normal. A trade deal, or it lack, will have a significant impact on the domestic and global economy.
Enacting a law encouraging 401(K)s to offer guaranteed payment constitutes an incremental adjustment to an existing system. This type of policy update should be part of Congress's normal activity, and will likely affect many people (hence, 'mostly important'). At the same time, it will affect   limited set of people and does not mandate that 401(k)s offer these options (hence not 'important').
Though the language of loyalty evokes authoritarian leaders, and though the executive is generally perceived as having a duty to work with professionals in the federal bureaucracy, the identification and appointment of political allies to key positions is something one would expect most presidents to do. In this case, the extent to which this is occurring (and the distrust of professionals within agencies, i.e. the deep-state) appears to go beyond what prior administrations have sought in terms of loyalty and tolerated in terms of dissent, though the general strategy may not be entirely abnormal. Such actions do have an important impact on the efficient (or inefficient) functioning of federal agencies, which I might say is evidenced now by the inability to respond effectively to COVID-19.
Similar to the previous question, the minority leader's words are a colloquial expression of threat. While that is and should be abnormal, unlike the previous comment (the president's tweet about Adam Schiff), the first part calls out Kavanaugh and Gorsuch's role in a SCOTUS decision and its consequences rather than personally denigrating them. Again, I think that threats between major institutional leaders are at least semi-important, even if singular instances may be less important on their own terms.
I don't know what it means for 401ks to offer guaranteed payment, so I can't evaluate the importance of the law.
My judgement of this event as mostly abnormal is influenced by context not mentioned here, which is that Trump was investigated by the FBI, fired the FBI director, etc., so his putting a political appointee in charge of the intelligence services seemed to provide a way for him to interfere in these investigations and to interfere in the democratic system.
I mean that the House vote was an appropriate thing for the House to do, given the President's actions, but it was abnormal in the sense of unusual for a President to take actions necessitating such a vote.
I'm not sure we know yet exactly how emboldened the President was by his acquittal in the impeachment trial. I hope that our democracy is still functioning enough for us to learn somewhat in the future (or present) the extent to which he is engaging in illegal activities, potentially in concert with foreign powers, to try to win the 2020 election.
I suppose it's normal in the course of partisan politics, but borderline in the Senate's abnegation of it's higher duty
I'm not sufficiently versed in judicial procedure to judge the normality on this one, but I suppose it must happen some of the time in cases where folks have political connections
The president can appoint whom they want, but in this case, the person may lack qualifications for the post, and we would expect presidents to pick national security professionals
Presidents award medals of honor routinely, but the choice of recipient sends a clear political signal that is important
House has sole power to impeach; this includes timing and manner of delivery to Senate.
While presidents have the Constitutional power to pardon, we need to consider amending this so there could be SOME check on this currently-absolute power.
A lawyer’s making such a pronouncement is normal, but the substance of this one is not; this could lead to a president’s having a blank check for wrong doing as he determines for himself what is in the public interest.
My county prosecutor would not be re-elected if he “went through the motions” of having a “trial” if key witnesses were not called.
Legitimate Presidential appointment power was terribly abused in this case, especially in regard to Vindman!
Many acceptable appointments can be made of political allies/supporters with little or no regard for the appointees’ experience — but some appointive positions, such as Director of Intel, must be filled by capable, experienced persons.
Will be interested in reading your results.  Thank you.
Interpreting this as a question about the impeachment occurring: it is abnormal and important.
That is like the Nixon enemies list or Hugo Chávez's Tascón List and Maisanta Program.
Schumer was rephrasing what Kavanaugh said to the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee "Since my nomination in July, there’s been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything, to block my confirmation. You sowed the wind for decades to come. I fear that the whole country will reap the whirlwind."
Latin America, Public Health, Democracy and Democratization
The event is abnormal in that impeachment proceedings are not a regular occurrence in U.S. government.  The event is important because it establishes precedent for future impeachment proceedings.
I would expect a president's lawyer to defend the actions of the president.  This is what a lawyer is supposed to do in a legal system based on adversarial proceedings.
While much has been made of such lists, and perhaps the lists are more obvious in Trump's administration than those before him, such processes are not unusual in presidential administrations even if in the past they have not been so formalized.
This is abnormal because the House does not vote to impeach a president very often.  I rate it mostly important rather than important because Trump was not removed from office and, like Bill Clinton before him, I suspect his impeachment will not have tremendous long term consequences for him.
Public Policy, Political Economy, and Bureaucracy
He was in uniform, waging war against the United States, on foreign soil
A precaution, wise or not, against the spread of a disease
Ambassadors generally submit resignations when a new president takes office; and the ambassador is not supposed to sabotage the president's policy
Those are political appointments; and otherwise, civil servants are supposed to carry out the policy of  the elected officials, not decide for themselves whether that is a good idea or not.
What the hell does having been an ambassador to Germany, taken in itself, have to do with anything.
He awards those he thinks have done a service to the country.
Schumer often comes across as an asshole. From a civics class perspective, it looks like an obstruction of justice.
The tone of all of these strikes me as awfully tendentious
Presidential administrations have a lot of leeway in this respect, but the blatant nod to "loyalty" is highly unnerving.
Another example of the end of the rule of law.
No president has ever been impeached AND removed. Mitt Romney's was the first vote ever cast NOT along party lines on a presidential removal. So, that makes it normal. On the other hand, we've never had a president this totally unacceptable from every angle imaginable. That the Republican Party can't admit this is damning.
Yeah, inviting violence against one's political opponents. That's not democratic.
I've learned that Dershowitz is a special kind of person. There are plenty of those in every country on the planet.
Classic police power. While ordinarily reserved to the states by the 10th amendment, our custom and usage over the last century puts this squarely in acceptable.
This is the beginning of the end for the rule of law. This is a huge deal. While the sentence recommendation was a bit harsh, it's patently obvious that this was changed because of Trump's interdiction.
Sadly, not as abnormal as it should be. Nixon did the same.
Impeaching someone for doing impeachable things is normal.
Congresspeople have long politicized the judiciary. Presidents usually haven't done so as explicitly as Trump has, but have definitely done so.
Timing is unfortunate, with COVID-19 really being an issue.
gender, women, and politics; political parties and political movements
Contempt of Congress.  Obstruction of justice.
Systematic avoiding of the the Senate's oversight function on executive appointment.
Loved the article in Perspectives on Politics
Unfortunately, this is done more often than it should be.
We should not violate the norms of use of pardon power to excuse war criminals. Hurts our international standing and legitimacy long-term.
How is this surprising with the constitutional hardball the Senate Republicans have practices for the last ten years.
Not illegal but violates constitutional and democratic norms coming out of Watergate.
Clearly retribution for testifying against the President.
We left the spoils system behind in the 19th century for most of our lower level public servants for this very reason.
Respect the separation of powers rhetorically because you need to operationally as well.
Keep it up and keep sending it, an honor to participate in it.
Senate was responding to public opinion, which unfortunately did not move drastically for impeachment.
Individual political attacks through Twitter on individual roles played interferes with legitimacy of the institutions.
Personal benefits mixed with role of the President's office
Puts the White House more powerful than the House or Senate in terms of institutional checks and balances.
Compromise of independent Judicial system of the country.
Need people to fulfill responsibilities of the agency and not political favors/politically motivated positions. Ideally, the agencies should be able to act independent of political interference.
checks and balances of institutions on each other.
The trade war is what matters, Phase 1 is symbolic and mostly substance-free.
It is difficult to assess normality of post-impeachment actions that were entirely predictable.
There are few cases in which symbolism matters, but this is such a case.
Depressing, as always, and badly timed since I submit this amid COVID-19.  I can't wait to see what you ask next time.
Partisan votes on impeachment are nothing new. The lack of witnesses was the abnormal aspect of this.
This is highly problematic because it undermines congressional oversight of the executive branch. Under Trump we are seeing the executive grabbing more power and Congress largely unable to check this.
Undermining the merit-based civil service system and eroding expertise in the government could do long-term damage to the quality of service our government provides.
What makes this abnormal is not that it is a "political ally" who was an ambassador, but rather the fact that the person has limited national security experience. Presidents often appoint allies; the issue is lack of expertise/qualifications.
This is a bizarre choice that reinforces the fact that Trump has no clue about norms and conventions of the office. However, I doubt it has lasting importance in terms of policy or electoral outcomes.
Rhetorical excess by Schumer, but I doubt there are lasting consequences.
This is highly abnormal but may not turn out to be very important if such calls are ignored by the courts.
stupid statement. Needs to be put in context
Stupid statement by a stupid person: vacuous
African Politics, authoritarianism, public opinion
Highly unusual, of course, but not a strange occurrence in the circumstances.
Russia and post Soviet politics, Authoritarian regimes, democratization
It's not normal in the sense of happens frequently, but the action was normal given the evidence.
Latin American Politics - Crime and Democratization
If the two chambers were not so ideologically different she might have been able to send articles sooner.
If action is illegal or unconstitutional then the action must be punished through congressional action.
Unusual measures caused by extreme health crisis.
Staunch ideological orientation of court has caused this reaction.  Judicial selection is no longer objective but tinged by ideology imposed by extremists in Senate.
Urban politics; Race, Class; Voting Rights
Abnormal (according to the survey's definition) but expected (historically speaking, and consistent with the features of the institution of Congress).
As a political scientist, I have to say that you people should be ashamed you yourselves.  This statement is clearly pulled out of context, where it's meaning was clear.  You have absolutely zero credibility are legitimate researchers and are nothing but partisan hacks undermining the profession.
Don't really understand the question, and hence feel that my answer is meaningless.  Impeachment is a part of US Constitutional processes, but is unusual.
Why was I asked the exact same question twice?
Anglo-Americal political thought; modern and contemporary thought
Political Parties, Interest Groups, Social Movements
Strange utterances come from those who are toadies to those in power.
It would have extended a largely symbolic process, but without any likelihood of changing the impeachment trial.
This is a very complex matter, and I don't see any really long term achievements in balanced trade relationships given the current international atmosphere.
It demonstrates the personality of the president as being incompatible with the Law, and demonstrates his compulsion to reward those few he trusts.
This relates once more to the president's narcissistic insecurities, giving him a  tendency to surround himself with "Yes men."  Professor Jerry Harvey pointed out the dangers in this approach in "The Abilene Paradox."
Once again, a sociopath needs friends, but really has a hard time establishing friendship without obligation of a Mafia nature.
It was a largely futile exercise, although one that probably needed to be accomplished.  It may be more significant historically, than as a current event.
It just Donald reacting to someone who doesn't love him.  This is a real problem for a Sociopath.
citizenship, and increasingly the challenge of populism
Pardoning a convicted war criminal over the counsel of his superiors, peers, and subordinates sets a very dangerous precedent.
The partisan influence was not unexpected nor terribly abnormal given the electoral environment of the last thirty years or so. Nevertheless, the epistemic closure on display in the Senate fundamentally short-circuits institutional mechanisms for setting a check on executive authority.
Especially as more information because public between the House vote and the Senate trial, one would have thought that Senate Republicans would wish to avoid the accusation of impartiality (if only for fear of electoral punishment). Apparently not.
Barring individuals who traveled abroad, even in a pandemic, is highly abnormal and may result in the perverse consequence that such individuals would attempt to evade detection, thereby frustrating the policy's ostensible aims.
Retributions against public officials for complying with Congressional subpoenas is monstrous behavior.
Principals want agents who will effectively implement their policy goals, and subjective assessments of agent loyalty are one metric by which to assess them for this purpose. Ideally, presidents would take Machiavelli's advice to avoid sycophants, but it's not unusual for them not to.
The impeachment was not normal in the sense that it happens frequently, of course, but it is normal, and very important, that institutional triggers responded in this case
Ancient Greek Political Thought, Feminist Political Theory, Moral Epistemology
Partisan voting is not really abnormal although the extent to which it overrides evidence or even interest in evidence is
I'm thrown a bit by the "in the public interest" stipulation. Sufficient that the president CLAIM this? Believe it? That there be supporting rationale and evidence?
It would be abnormal under any other administration. Under Trump it's just another Wednesday. The fact that it could be seen as a threat makes it more important than Trump's usual attack tweets
Since Dershowitz is now mainly seen as a sycophant, his words are not that important.
It replaces expertise with loyalism. It dismantles the bureaucracy and leaves no room for any other value than politics (or really, loyalty) and servitude to Trump in the institutions that are supposed to serve the American people.
The fact that it comes from a democrat makes it even more abnormal (Trump has been criticizing judges before). The fact that a democrat does so, too, makes it even more important, because it helps normalize these attacks
Many administrations have resisted subpoenas - the thing that is unusual is that there is usually then a process of inter-branch negotiation in which neither side gets all of what it wants.  That is absent in this case.
Not clear why she did it.  Once the House impeached, she should have sent the articles to the Senate.
He deserved to be attacked, but it was done seemingly arbitrarily and was not sufficiently explained before or after.
This is what you would expect in an impeachment.  But the Republican rhetoric was often over the top.
All administrations resist subpoenas, but Trump was absolute and pushed executive privilege beyond historical standards.
Chinese behavior in trade, e.g. intellectual property, is a legitimate concern, but Trump has pursued it in an inconsistent and personalized way.
This was a legitimate move as long as it is based on empirical facts about covid-19
All presidents are concerned with loyalty, but Trump has taken this to extremes and making formal lists (e.g. Ginnie Thomas) is dangerous, as it was in the Nixon administration.
Impeachment is specified in the Constitution.  No one said it was unconstitutional when Clinton was impeached.
Doing nothing would have accepted Trump's behavior as acceptable.
Good survey.  On impeachment's effects on the future, it depends on the character of future presidents.  I am hopeful that they will not be like Trump.  Thanks for doing this survey regularly.  Jim Pfiffner
Limbaugh is a racist and a mysogynist who has fundamental contempt for evidence based reasoning, referring to scientists, medical experts, journalists, and academics as comprising the "4 corners of American deceit." Hes a wannabe authoritarian and there is nothing normal about him or his receiving a medical of freedom. What a sick joke.
Political communication, public opinion, interest groups, and social movements
Country over party is, in the end, a myth after all.
The U.S. Constitution and the idea that no one is above the law, including the president, should mean something. The House tried to make this real.
Race & Ethnic Politics and Gender & Politics
We're only two social media presidents in. Obama didn't use social media in this way. Trump is using his public platform to disparage opponents, which degrades the office as it is unpresidential.
This reflects a serious derogation of senatorial duties.
Presidents make unannounced visits to the troops. This is pretty normal.
This makes it easier to extend retirement benefits to part-time works. This is a pretty straightforward, however major, policy.
It's not abnormal to have such a list. It's abnormal for it to have been made public, and for officials to have so aggressively used their power to shut down opponents.
It's not abnormal to put allies into key positions who have limited experience. It's not a great practice, but it happens somewhat often.
This level of partisanship isn't abnormal, but the legislative branch going after the judicial branch is somewhat uncommon.
I hope your response rate is good. Polling during a pandemic presents lots of challenges. Thanks!
Unusual for a president to be impeached...so not normal state of affairs
Two criminal acts — one real criminal act by Gallagher and one criminally unethical and immoral by POTUS
More vindictiveness and coverups in a corrupt administration
The new red scare. Dangerous then and dangerous now.
Wanton abuse of Presidential discretion.
On surface this is normal. However, partisan politics moves it more into the mostly abnormal category.
Debate whether tweets are official policy producing items or the irate expression of a person
I found the “abnormal” choice ambiguous with respect to a number of questions.  Impeachment is a “normal” power of Congress but rare and, arguably, abnormal.
The Vindman firing is a REAL problem. The Sondland firing is less of a problem because of ambassadorship. Plus, he was a wack ambassador anyway.
Whether one guy serves a sentence for committing war crimes doesn't change the military's commitment to the UCMJ or the prevalence of war crimes.
Impeachment and Senate trial are a political process, and nobody every reasonably supposed that a Republican majority in the Senate was going to produce a two-thirds majority for conviction.  An important Democratic goal was to force the Republicans to reveal how unreasonable they were.
States negotiate trade deals all the time and they fall apart in the face of comparative advantage.
The commander in chief is supposed to show up at military units from time to time.
Government exists to engage in marginal redistribution.
All government promotions and transfers are based on serving the president's agenda.
The particular event is fairly unusual but campaigning against courts is normal, especially for a Republican, and it doesn't matter, because the president can't affect whether a justice recuses herself.
I guess the survey is ok, but the questions mostly concern current events, to which people massively overreact and which need to be viewed in much longer perspective.  Of course maybe that's the idea, to demonstrate how much people overreact.  In general I'm very skeptical about survey research even with open-ended comments, which are a positive feature even if people including me don't have time to explore fully the complexity of their thinking.
It's hard to say what's normal with respect to impeachment given its rarity.
Calling out one's political opponents as treasonous is well beyond the democratic pale.
Speaking to the military in highly partisan terms is abnormal and important though.
I don't know enough about 401Ks to judge.
What makes it abnormal is his lack of experience in intelligence.
presidential politics, human rights, public service motivation
It is abnormal in that it happens so rarely.
It is an argument is a trial. It is important if it becomes accepted in terms of executive power.
It reduces legitimacy and leaves impression that the DOJ is not independent.
Important for checks and balances. Abnormal because it is rare.
Not very important individually but could be important symbolically and/or as the beginning of a trend.
Abnormal that we had a Senate trial at all; perhaps abnormal that the Senate did not convict given the evidence. But normal in the sense that it would have been highly abnormal, in fact unique in American history, to have a President convicted on impeachment charges.
Not that important that Dershowitz said it but very important as an indicator of a principle accepted by the President and the Republican party.
Impeachments are abnormal so it is hard to quantify
This violates the constitution and gives the executive cart Blanche
Impeachment’s are abnormal regardless , but failure to comply violates the law
Punishment of whistleblowers violates the law
Nsa is more of a neutral political body but the us uses a spoils system
Normality is hard to evaluate vis a vis impeachment so I don’t know about the reliability of these estimates
Authoritarianism in Middle East and Africa
Normal for highly partisan politics. Probably bad for democracy.
May undercut the rules-based trading system that has been built over decades.
The issue is not the surprise visit so much as thinking he could make a deal with the Taliban.
Seems like a bi-partisan bill that might actually help people. What government is supposed to do.
Apparently, it is highly unusual for the Justice Department to reverse a sentencing recommendation after it has been made by prosecutors in a U.S. Attorney’s office.
Concerning about appointing loyalists, but not sure if it is unusual.
To be fair, SC Judges are supposed to be non-partisan.
it's not normal but it was a good move (unlike the other abnormal moves)
Criminal justice - specifically CJ policy and policing
The problem is that nothing was done with US citizens entering from China who posed same threat.
Not sure how to apply "abnormal" here.  It is entirely consistent with our norms and laws, but it is clearly not a frequent event, and therefore not normal.
It's all yesterday's news. Dwarfed by the virus crisis.
Given the source of this statement, few in the contemporary U.S would find the statement abnormal for the current president.
In the realm of ironic rather than a scale of normal to abnormal. A person can die for the U.S. if sent to war at the age of 18, but has to wait until they are 21 in order to smoke. I am against smoking, but believe it is a matter of personal choice.
Times of crisis, such as periods of war and interstate conflict or state collapse, often leads to migratory patterns and the rise in suspicion of outsiders,hence immigration restrictions. Such restrictions are often racialized.
Cronyism is the order of the day for the current administration.
Rhetorical, dramatic statements by elected officials are not uncommon.
With so few impeachments in the history of the U.S. presidency, Trump's impeachment is extraordinary, though given the ideological conflicts between House and Senate Trump's impeachment has had little effect on contemporary politics or Trump's subsequent behavior.
The impeachment was a bogus effort that was politically driven by Democrats. Adam Schiff created a political fallacy that he was’n’t able to prove.
The President can and should invoke executive privilege when the request is inappropriate.
The House was biased, and this was manipulated to damage the President.
This was’t a fair or bipartisan effort. It was total manipulation by  Democrats.
We kill a lot of people. We’re barely not at war with Iran and kill their scientists routinely. Escalation sure but we escalate with countries all the time. Dumb of course but that’s par for the course for then US
We usually just don’t prosecute those who committed the crimes.
Political scientists have been making these arguments for decades and while dumb it’s hardly indefensible given his caveat that this precludes otherwise illegal behavior. The corruption starts with political and other social scientists.
We’ve had so few impeachment trials of this magnitude that normal is a silly metric. And “abnormal” events like Iran Contra happen basically once every second administration. Hardly abnormal either. Just wrong.
The treatment of 18 rather than 21 as age of majority for all things is pretty recent
She's a master of the game, so she was playing the only card she could: withhold until agreement on terms was accomplished.
AGH. THIS IS NOT NORMAL BEHAVIOR. This radically endangers all US military personnel. It endangers our relationships with allies. It is a mockery of the Constitution and the UCMJ. It dishonors us all.
Vilifying members of the loyal opposition is what would-be tyrants and authoritarians do. It demeans the office and it is a threat to democracy.
A good faith belief one is right does not give one vast powers to do whatever you wish! Dershowitz's argument here is truly bananas. And winning an election is not a valid justification for official acts! AGH.
I honestly don't know whether previous administrations have barred foreign nationals from entering in other similar situations; like did we ban foreign nationals traveling from sites where Ebola was present? Or did we allow them to enter, then subject them to quarantine?
It's fine.  Presidents and executive leaders do this sort of thing all the time.
This remains shocking (as if we can still be shocked). A toadie with little NS experience as the head of the DNI?! What would Bush I say?!
I mean, the House did what a legislative body with impeachment power should do given the facts. That the president denied it and his party refused to convict in the Senate is the abnormal part. It is hugely important, because it weakens any sort of interbranch check on this and future executives, and if impeachment goes, we are in trouble.
The president's actions warranted both impeachment and conviction. That the Republican party rolled over on its commitment to fair governance and playing by the rules is absolutely terrifying.
race, american political development, death and politics
Keep it up, folks. This is so important.    I was surprised to see no COVID-19 questions; hoping to get to respond to those, because the current president's response has been absolutely terrible.
Normal in the sense that no Senate majority has ever voted to impeach a same-party president.
Japanese politics, political institutions, political culture.
Assassination of foreign leaders, even if they are reprehensible, has been a recognized norm of international relations for centuries.
Where do I start?  Well, how about the Mueller Report that outlined eleven cases of obstruction of justice in volume 2 of the report.  Second, the Trump administration refused to allow its members to testify.  Third, those who chose to risk their careers and testify were threatened and intimidated by the President.  Disgraceful.
Rep. Schiff was performing his Constitutional responsibility and the President intimidated and implicitly threatened him.  Disgraceful.
The Senate's Constitutional duty was to sit as a jury.  How can a jury reach a verdict without witnesses and evidence?
As Commander-in-Chief, the President should show his support and encouragement of the troops.
They were penalized for acceding to a Congressional request to testify and removed from their jobs for doing so.  The President's actions were despicable.
Public servants for political hacks who, in many cases, were unqualified for the jobs to which they were appointed.
It was a savvy leverage play. Given the unwillingness by GOP Senators to put their country over their cultish devotion to/fear of Trump, the Dems had no guarantee that McConnell wouldn’t dismiss the entire thing. At least the process - sham that it was- played out and history will note that this moronic corrupt disaster of a President was impeached and that some people still believed in the Republic and tried to do the right thing.
Publicly assassinating a well-know agent of a sovereign state is new. It is qualitatively different from the drone campaign against AQ and IS or other terrorist groups. The subsequent shoot-down of the Iranian passenger jet seemed to largely diffuse the crisis. But (again) the assassination seems to go against most accepted norms and could endanger the lives of US officials in the future.
Disgraceful political intervention into military justice system. Erosion of norms of civil- military relations.
Self explanatory. There is a civil/foreign service for very good reasons. Political appointees in this administration are ideological drones, incompetent fools, grossly inexperienced amateurs, corrupt self-serving con artists or sone combination of those categories. No one who voluntarily services in this administration should ever be hired by traditional democratic or republican administration ever again!
Ambassador to Germany is immaterial. The individual is an ideological hack and intellectual lightweight who shouldn’t be in any senior policy role. Being in charge of intelligence (bi-/nonpartisan) is just the most extreme transgression of this buffoon being in a senior national security position.
He was rightly impeached and should have been convicted.
It was an unseemly move, but it reflects a fundamental frustration with the packing of courts with either grossly unqualified hacks or extremist conservative ideologues. Again, steamrolling institutional norms, Leader McConnell has viewed this as “success” in implementing the Trump agenda. However, it undermines and erodes the perceived legitimacy of the “independent” judiciary and has potentially dangerous long term implications.
It’s abnormal except in the age of Trump. He’s an aggressively stupid, morally bankrupt, and maniacally narcissistic person who just doesn’t have any semblance of the norms of democratic discourse or the importance of institutions and rules.
The questions appear to contain anti-Trump bias in the language and phrases used.
Southeast Asia, history of state-making and civilization, ethnography
I await the results and conclusions, especially the changes over time
While world powers historically have conducted operations designed to eliminate key figures in rival governments and their armed forces, in the absence of a formal declaration of war, it is not the norm for the United States to do so through a formal military operation.  This action compromises the ability of the US to invoke plausible deniability, especially when a high profile actor in a state in which the US has either a contentious or adversarial relationship is forcibly eliminated.
Trade agreements among nation-states is normal.  The manner in which the Phase One Trade agreement was secured is somewhat unusual, but not unprecedented.
This action is well within the legislative authority granted to the Congress in Article 1 section 8.
Article 1 section 8 vests Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, as well as to provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.  Regulating the Internal Revenue Code is a part of that essential function.
The override of Federal Prosecutors' recommendations concerning the sentence pronounced for Roger Stone suggests a division within the US Department of Justice between those who seek to enforce the Rule of Law (the Prosecutors) and those who seek to cater to the personal desires of the President (in this case, the office of the Attorney General).  The Manual of the Department of Justice clearly states that officers must “be impartial and insulated from political influence”. If prosecutors in the DoJ are to be held to this standard, so too must the Attorney General.  Further, as Publius stated in Federalist #57 about Representatives, so it must also be for the Executive Branch: Care must be taken that they can make no decision which will not have its full impact on themselves and tehir friends, as well as the great mass of society.
While precedent for the appointment of political allies into top positions in government does exist, past Presidents have generally limited the scope of candidacies for appointment to those allies with a deep awareness of the policy area over which the appointment has authority.  This appointment does not meet that standard.  Appointing an "acting" director is abnormal, and constitutes an effort to avoid the advice and consent of the Senate.  Further, the reliance on "acting" principal officers necessarily generates a power vacuum in the agencies over which the acting principal officer is operating, and renders that officer unable to act independently of the President, especially when the normal operation of the agency in question requires it.
The Presidential Medal of Freedom (formerly the Medal of Merit) is reserved to recognize those civilians who have made "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors."  His financial contributions to various areas of medical research notwithstanding, Rush Limbaugh has made no "especially meritorious contribution" as described above.  Granted, he is not the first person of such dubious merit to have been so decorated; nevertheless, it is not normal to so award a character as aggressively divisive as Mr. Limbaugh.
Article 3 states that the Justices of the Supreme Court shall hold their offices "during good behavior," and that they shall receive for their services compensation "which shall not be reduced during their tenure".  The principle upon which these provisions rest is the independent character of the Judicial branch as a feature of the regular distribution of power into distinct departments.  Consequently, it is not customary for a member of Congress, particularly a Senator, to admonish the Court ahead of deliberations over a case brought before the Court.  Granted, Senator Schumer did not specify what "price" Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch would pay, but from a Constitutional perspective, the only price the Congress may insist a justice pay is through the Impeachment process.  Exacerbating the abnormality of Schumer's admonition is the provision whereby the House of Representatives, not the Senate, has "the sole power of Impeachment."  The Senate shall try all impeachments., so unless the House is willing to impeach a Supreme Court Justice for publishing an opinion, Schumer's admonition remains a hollow gong.
The Judiciary must remain an independent tribunal for the resolution of disputes.  The President of the United States does not have the power to force Justices from recusing themselves under any circumstances. Justices are neither prosecutors, nor defense attorneys nor litigants.  The accepted Rules of Restraint should be sufficient to protect the integrity of the constitutional system from encroachment by arbitrary authority.  Further, as Publius states in Federalist #78, the Courts are the least dangerous to the political rights secured by the Constitution; therefore they are least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.  The Courts have neither force nor will, but only judgment, and depend entirely on a compliant executive branch to enforce the consequences of their decisions.  For a President to attempt to force a justice to recuse himself or herself from any cases in which the President is a party is an arrogation of arbitrary authority and a gross breach of the regular distribution of power into distinct departments established by the Constitution.
foundations of political thought; Semantics and semiotics of political speech; impact of Indigenous political thought on Western political theory and philosophy
No country is omnipotent, and engaging in murder of military officers of other countries opens the door to subjecting our own military officers to assassination. Killing the Iranian general may have been personally satisfying to the US President, but it legitimized assassination of military leaders of any country that another country may dislike.
Disrespect for accepted institutional procedures degrades institutional norms and is destructive to discipline and institutional morale. For a military institution heavily reliant on discipline, traditional rules, obedience to law, honor, and ethics, the behavior is inexcusable, particularly by "The Commander-in-Chief.
Who needs truth when ideology is supreme & shamelessly called alternate truth!
Considering the pandemic, the decision is understandable, although following the President's tirades against Mexicans, Moslems, Europeans, and the "Chinese Virus," the optics are disgraceful and undiplomatic.
To grant the Presidential Medal of Freedom to a person whose "celebrity" is linked to propagating measures to deny freedom to anyone who disagrees with his views, diminishes the value of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and respect for the Office of US President.
The nomination of the Justices, following the Senate denial of even a vote for the nominee by the former President Obama to the end of Obama's term of office, is a stain on the status of the US Supreme Court, and a lasting discredit to the Senate Republicans, and to the Republican leader of the Senate responsible for the dishonorable conduct.
Political Economy, Diplomacy, Middle East.
corrosive of democracy if it were anything but abnormal
It suited the facts, and is expected of a chamber controlled by opposing partisans.
Thank you for doing this! I look forward to seeing the responses.
Not at all surprising that the Senate, with a majority of the President's party, would not convict him.
If true, carte blanche for any kind of activity to get re-elected.
Stone is a clown.  It is not great, but he is a very marginal character.
Impeachment is not "normal" in the sense of commonplace, but it is normal in the sense of being an established constitutional process.
pointless political theater, so in that sense normal these days
This question is weird. GIVEN that Trump was impeached, I see nothing abnormal about the senate acquittal. Statistically, of course, impeachment is abnormal and important for a US presidential administration
Any move back towards global free trade is important
I am 95% sure that any president would have done something similar
these officials serve at the president's pleasure.
Impeachment was pointless if the goal was actually to remove Trump and likely pointless if the goal was to generally help Democrats electorally. Of course, impeachment is rare in the US, so it's necessarily abnormal and important
Shows the huge decline in civility and public rhetoric from this administration. Criticizing policy decisions is very different than as hominem personal attacks. And veiled threats from the most powerful office in the country to other elected officials - completely unacceptable.
The endpoint of this logic is basically the president can do whatever he wants and it is lawful. Dershowitz tried to walk it back, but it was a terrible argument or precedent to set.
It is a pretty straightforward response to an unusual situation. There were evidently lots of exceptions as far as who was barred.
All presidents do this - it just took him a while to.
It’s the WHO involved that matters more than the WHAT here. In a situation where the DoJ should have bent over backwards to ensure there was not even the perception of partiality - they did the opposite. So discouraging.
There is a long tradition of trying not to “politicize” intelligence - but has not always been consistently followed. The disregard for actual expertise is a troubling trend.
In context it didn’t sound so threatening as it does out of context - especially if he was referring to Kavanaugh’s own words.  But any attacks from politicians on the independence of the courts, and especially individual judges, is problematic
It is normal in the sense that it is the Constitutionally prescribed procedure for holding the president accountable. It is abnormal in that it doesn’t happen very often.
Impeachment was always intended to be a political, not a legal, process. But there was also an assumption that representatives would act on principle and not in purely partisan ways. But for Mitt Romney, that was not the case with the Trump impeachment and that sets a bad precedent.
He’s a personal lawyer.  What would you expect?
They were not to convict so this was part of a dance
We live in an era of polarized politics.  What is normal in this world is not what was normal in most of the 20th century.  It is not clear to me which standard to apply.
It really depends on whether he is considered a head of an opposing/terrorist(supporting) coercive unit or a political/ diplomatic figure. It is largely a breech of protocol and international norms (though not without precedent completely)
A president should not use such rhetoric. This one does regularly so the impact is somewhat minimized. However, Mr Schiff has said he has clear evidence of criminal activity on the part of the president but never released such information. Prior to his appearance in the Senate hearings, he did as much as possible to justify the President's concerns (at the very least to the President's supporters, if not also to others as well).
Presidents often make unannounced visits to soldiers and it has little long term effect (except perhaps on those soldiers and their families).
The president has the right to recall such people working in the administration. It is not wise to do so following an investigation and this sets some bad precedent.
These awards are a matter of political signaling. They can be given to more or less widely respected people (that is, people whose accomplishments are respected by 'the other side of the aisle'). It is a matter of executive discretion (assuming the president has such a thing).
In itself, the comment is somewhat important. If there is follow up from the senator, his party, or his opposition it could be more.
The Trump administration has created more reasons than some others but, to be fair, it has been treated very differently by media and members of the government and administration (the broader state). The choice to impeach without a very strong case made it clear to most people that impeachment is a matter of virtue for one side and politics for the other. Of course, is that not the definition of all political activities? Impeachments should be about politics but they should be above partisan politics or policy difference. This truly was in an intermediary category and the better option (for democracy, I believe) was for the Democrats to pursue a case of censure. Unfortunately, the sense of (further) 'politicization' of the process will encourage future politicians to be more likely to pursue impeachment earlier on the option list (not a 'last' option).
Again, the President says many things which are outside of the bounds of normal and speaks the 'way normal people do.' As a result, his comments are less important. At the same time, Supreme Court Justices have to be careful what they say publicly particularly when they appear partisan. To make comments about what the Court will judge based on its 'composition' can be damaging to the institution which must operate on the pretense that a judge with a X position may very well vote against X in a given case.
Middle East, US Foreign Policy, Diplomacy
It is not usual, since it has happened very rarely in the nation’s history, but it is “normal” in the sense that this part of the system worked as it should
Pardons, even unpopular ones, are de rigeuer in the US. As Commander in Chief, Trump was well within his rights.
The entire impeachment was a farce from start to finish. The prosecution and defense managed to clothe themselves in self-righteousness, but neither really offered any evidence one way or the other. If impeachment is a political process only, then impeachment was destined to fail from the start, because Republicans controlled the upper chamber. If impeachment was at least somewhat legalistic, then the prosecution should have attempted to prove something concrete. There was no question what the President did; the only question was what his motives were, and the only people that could have spoken to that were people the House never called to testify. While the Senate could have called additional witnesses, impeaching someone before mens rea has been established in case hinging on mens rea borders on malpractice. On the upside, both chambers followed procedure, and there were no naked power grabs by anyone group outside electoral politics.
It's hard to say what presidents would have said with twitter in the past, but the Trump's use of twitter is sui generis. There is a reasonable reading that Trump meant electoral price, but as with Schumer, this was abnormal. In the end, however, Trump's tweets are mostly empty bluster, and posturing, even more than most politicians.
The idea would be abnormal, and inconsistent with electoral politics and democracy, but the fact Alan Dershowitz said it in the role of defense attorney, renders the statement one of those things that defense lawyers sometimes say, even if they don't believe them.
The senate is empowered under the constitution to conduct the trial however it sees fit. If the House wanted to call more witnesses it could have. The entire affair was embarrassing, but unfolded as outlined in the Constitution, and no party overreached its own authority.
Tax law is tax law. I don't know much about this law particularly.
Seeming to threaten justices (though I don't think that is what he actually meant) is unusual for a senator. That said, his walkback rendered it less important.
Impeachment was once incredibly rare, and is always important, but is less rare today.
This survey is much better than the last one. A dropdown menu is available through Qualtrics, and might make a better choice for the "state."
It seems likely that this is, at least implicitly, what most executives do within whatever constraints they face. It is important inasmuch as knowing that it happens might affect how voters evaluate their choices.
Such political assassinations are not clearly legal, and further increase the unrestrained military power of the president.  Not a good thing in a democracy.
This kind of action undermines the impeachment process and the responsibility of Congress to be a check on presidential power.
Such actions are a threat to the rule of law and the separation of powers.
A president threatening and punishing witnesses against him is an abuse of power that is clearly disturbing in a democracy.
A award to such a controversial figure is somewhat abnormal -- but I see not significant political impacts from this.
I was a bit confused on how to answer this one.  Impeachments are clearly rare and abnormal.  But given Trumps offenses, it should be normal to impeach him. Any impeachment is certainly important.
Sounds a bit like a threat -- which sets a bad precedent for civil dialogue about the Court.
Again, impeachments are rare -- but in this case, it was an appropriate action.
Two:  electoral system reform in the U.S., and democratic theory and practice in the U.S.
The outcome was never in doubt, so her unusual but legal delay was only semi-important.
He is a war criminal who committed atrocities, and pardoning him is a political act calculated to help President Trump politically.
No President has ever been convicted by the Senate and removed from office, but the evidence against Trump was overwhelming. Trump has frightened all but one U.S. Senate Republicans (Romney) into forgiving him his many politically motivated felonies.
This action lowers the dignity and status of the Presidency and worsens the partisan gridlock that brings out the worst in federalism: the government's inability to take urgently needed actions, e.g. on climate change, poverty, and gun control.
The world's two largest economies can compete but must also cooperate to maintain the global economic order.
Such individuals are a very small part of the coronavirus threat to the U.S.
In the long run, 401(k)s increase in value and their owners benefit from them without such assurance.
It constitutes a dire corruption of government in violation of the public good.
Trump has committed many impeachable crimes and should be held to account for them.
Timely and important--keep up the good work!
Only important if you actually believe anything this president says or does
Possibly the individual states should make this decision.
Unlike the president, Schumer apologized for this statement as he should have
Since there have been very few impeachment trials, it is difficult to define "normal."
It's clearly an encroachment on state powers, but they've already done that with the drinking age. I was not even aware that this had happened.
Quarantine would be normal as a public health measure; but it is abnormal to exempt US citizens from a quarantine.
Environmental politics; parties and party systems
It's a bit important, because it's an infringement on the freedom of people whom the state deems adults when it comes to voting, conscription, or imprisonment; but it's normal politics.
I think this is a messy case, where Stone was taking the fall for the president and  both the prosecutors and the DOJ were motivated by considerations other than justice.
Dismissing appointees for disloyalty is not abnormal, but in this case, they were dismissed for telling the truth under oath during a constitutional process essential to our system of checks and balances. So firing them is important because it demonstrated arrogance and impunity and because it sent a chilling message to anyone in the administration who might think of speaking up in the future.
On the one hand, awards matter mostly to the person getting them and the rest of us pay little attention, so it would seem mostly unimportant; but giving the highest national honor to Limbaugh is symptomatic of something very important: this administration's disregard for democratic norms and for unifying decisions.
The abnormal piece was that we've long targeted him, but not struck him because of the potentially destabilizing effects.  That's not something the current leader seems to worry about.
The voting wasn't overly surprising; the concerning piece is that there was no actual trial, no witnesses
It was normal in the sense of being what partisan politics would lead you to expect, but it was inconsistent with Senators' constitutional oaths.
Russian politics African politics democratization
Politicians have often punished acts they deem disloyal. What makes this one troubling is that it confirmed the President's tendency to judge members of his administration solely on the criterion of political loyalty. The power to so act does not legitimate the act.
This was a threat, barely veiled, and utterly inappropriate from an elected leader from another branch of government.
I'm a generalist, teaching broadly in American politics, constitutional law, American political thought, Christian political thought
The terms "normal/abnormal" and "important/unimportant" seem slightly out-of-kilter without some qualification, but I think I grasp what you're driving at...
look the impeachment process is a hybrid process combining political objectives with the trappings  of a grand jury and a trial court. I would prefer it to be a just inquiry. It is hard for me imagine that can be fully achieved.
The president should not confused himself with the country. This president abetted by easy access to social media has said many,  many things  that cause distress if not harm to  a larger number of citizens and residents of our country. He is a governing billboard for the value of dividing the presidency into two offices: One person would serve as symbolic leader of all Americans as an inclusive symbol for all in times of distress  and  achievement. The other person is the executive elected to manage. I am, of course, over stating this problem but it is a serious one in this era.
It is difficult to know what is normal in a senate trial concerning the removal of a president. I would prefer that it be conducted with a recognize opportunity for witnesses to be call and that it should be  understood as  an accepted practice  for  such trials in the future
there have been cases in the past when subpoenas have been ignored but on this scale it is extreme and poses a  serious risk to effective checks and balances.
past presidents have made t unannounced visits to war zones abroad. I do no see as a threat to our institutions
My response might change depending on the constraints that govern such an obligation. In short how real it is.
This practice reflects in my mind the Congressional efforts in the l950s to search for communists in federal agencies. But more to the point we should seek to maintain a neutral civil service that serves the democratically elected office holders
Presidents have been impeached but not removed, It is rare. but when distrust  grows and accusation of  serious misconduct arise  impeachment should be considered
The Court is a central institution in the system of checks and balances. A scheme  reshape a majority sympathetic to the president by selectively excluding justice is wrong.  It may be we need to  expand the number of justices and have term limits if this goes on.
public policy,  surveillance, privacy and health policy in North Atlantic countries
this is very good project and I am very  glad that you are doing it. I do wish you get a way from relying on what is  "normal" which does not make a good deal of sense  as a descriptive political term over the past few decades and particularly now.
There really is no normal with respect to impeachment procedures, and while her action is important, it is relatively unimportant, procedurally, what particular action was used for transmittal.
Airstrikes on key enemies are not common, but all are important.
Inappropriate use of pardon, fortunately abnormal, and important that it is an abuse of power
Different academics have different perspectives, though this particular one seemed unusual. Free speech rights are important.
They serve at the pleasure of the president, so not necessarily abnormal, but the president's insistence on personal loyalty is detrimental to the country, consequently important.
The abnormal aspect is the degree to which this has been done in the current administration, especially when a number of the replacements are ill-qualified.
The recognition itself was not so abnormal, but using the SOTU as the setting was abnormal. I think the SOTU is an inappropriate venue, hence it being semi-important.
I needed to go back and reread the definitions but could not do so. So, abnormal in terms of it being an extraordinary event and important in the sense that impeachment is an important constitutional procedure.
Fortunately, such threatening language is most uncommon and it's important that it remain so.
Would have like to have gone back to review definitions before beginning normal/abnormal questions. Didn't see that option; perhaps I missed it since I'm seeing back arrow on this page. I also suspect there could be consideration variation in democracy perspectives due to different views about what constitutes democracy. I would want to know more about why individuals given the ratings they do.
voting, elections, state politics, political behavior
It is abnormal vis-a-vis pre-Trump. It is the new normal ever since he came to power. I think it is important to the extent in which it undermines the legitimacy of the opposition but, at this point, I am not sure how much damage it does (besides the damage these comments have been doing for three years).
Loyalty and/or ideological alignment weights on who a government decides to hire. That is normal. What I think is abnormal is the extent to which loyalty (more than ideological allignment althought those are often hard to disentanble) weights vis-a-vis competence or preparedness.
Impeachment is not a normal event, but this wouldn't be the first time the House votes to impeach a president in the US. It is also a constitutional tool and, in this case, I think its use is justified.
(Repeated from previous question) Impeachment is not a normal event, but this wouldn't be the first time the House votes to impeach a president in the US. It is also a constitutional tool and, in this case, I think its use is justified.
The borderline normal response reflects surprise that this action was not more covert. Otherwise, these types of covert acts are mostly normal.
Political institutional explanations of (foreign) policy outcomes.
Pelosi has been the most effective person who stands up to the bully Trump so yes, this was a shrewd move politically.
Trump's disregard for the rule of law is shifting us toward a new normal, one normal for autocracy but not for democracy
This is nuttier than a fruit cake and DErshowitz has lost all credibility.
Who ever heard of having a trial without witnesses!!
ALl people who visited china recently should be treated the same.  Foreigners should not be signaled out.
MCConnell's refusal to confirm Obama's Supreme Court and federal count nominees is dangerous to democracy.
Ethics, which seems to have less and less to do with politics under Trump.
Again, impeachment is a rare bird. But tactical decision making about whether (and when) to send legislation to the Senate happens all. the. time.  In that way, gamesmanship over the timing of sending the articles over is just standard practice.
This is the flip side of the impeachment question. I rated this as mostly abnormal because impeachment is so rare. However, I struggled over whether to categorize this as "borderline normal" given that the Senate has never voted to remove a president from office. In that way, the Senate was acting comfortably within its own precedents.
This statement boils down to "it's not illegal if the president does it." Were such a statement to hold sway, it would completely undercut Congress' constitutional authority to impeach and remove the president.  Normally, I would not rate a statement by a private citizen as 'mostly important," but Dershowitz's position as one of the President's attorneys puts him in an unusual position.
This falls well within Congressional authority. It does reduce the liberty of 18 to 20 year old Americans, so in that way has some "importance" and I think there's a live question as to whether the courts will uphold the law.
It's highly abnormal for a president to fire/reassign administration employees who testify before Congress, which is precisely what Lt. Col. Vindman and Ambassador Sondland did. This is a characteristic of autocrats, not democrats.   To badly paraphrase Emerson, when you come at the king you best not miss. President Trump's actions reflect this apparent philosophy, and his
It's not uncommon for Presidents to place their allies into powerful positions.  It happens every time the presidency changes hands.  What IS abnormal—and highly important—is President Trump's apparent requirement of personal fealty.
Presidents commonly name people they perceive as allies to high government posts. The oddity about the new acting DNI is two-fold: 1)he has limited experience in intelligence and 2) once again, Trump is likely to keep the position an "acting" one rather than seeking full Senate confirmation.
Members of Congress rarely explicitly identify and criticize members of the Supreme Court (or any other levels of the federal judiciary). While President Trump has broken existing norms respecting the relationship between the executive branch and the judiciary, such norm breaking how encompasses Congress as well as both major parties.
The House here acted entirely within its authority--that's normal. However, impeachments are rare political beasts (although I've lived through 3 of them), so that's abnormal. In any event, it's clearly important.
The greatest value of the President is to be "Presidential". True leadership does not allow personal vendetta's and certainly not 4th grade mean girl behavior.
The public can decide what is in our best interest. A candidate has a strong bias and personal interest. The President is not allowed to make his/her own laws (or interpret them) for personal gain.
Due to the severity of the virus and adverse effect on US population, this is now necessary. May not have been required if administration handle this issue effectively months ago.
If citizens finances are impacted directly by governmental actions (or inaction) there should be some form of safety net against government mismanagement.
DOJ, which is not (or no longer) independent from the Executive should not be involved with the punishment phase. Their job is to investigate and bring to trial. Stop.
A President is always likely to appoint persons who are amenable to their policies and perspectives. However, the person should actually be qualified for the post. Not so much in the mentioned action.
Ridiculous. An honored award recognizing "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors, has become the personal candy jar for Trump to reward his pets.
No president is above the law. Even if a case cannot be won due to political bias, procedures must be followed to expose the behavior.
No president has any right to interfere with the Judicial branch.
Middle East politics, conflict and post-conflict politics
Public policy at the state government level
Targetted assassinations are illegal in most cases under US and International law.
Mostly important because the choice to refuse additional (or existing) witnesses was driven by partisanship and not legal or constitutional reasons.
Disturbing given the history of this administration, but, normal when compared to COVID-19 responses by other democracies.
Too early to tell the longer term effects on the military and military-civilian relations.
Too little, too late.  Trump tried to convert a public health threat into a xenophobic threat to stoke his white nationalist base.  This could only work if there was no real public health threat.  Therefore, Trump's gambit failed.
Comparative political economy and public law/regulation
The comment is not from a government official. It is not the president making the comment. It is mostly unimportant what a lawyer who is also a political pundit says on tv.
She was in negotiation with Senate leadership.  Normal give-and-take among the two Houses, with higher than usual stakes.
I think impeachment both constrains and emboldens but on different dimensions of presidential behavior.
Not sending the Articles of Impeachment means that the full process of Impeachment and Jurisprudence cannot be completed as per the Constitution. On the other hand, the document does not definitively say that the House of Representatives MUST send the Articles of Impeachment forward. However, having read Hamilton's writings, I think he believed that sending the Articles to the Senate is a requirement, not an option.
It gave the U.S. a black eye internationally, but it's not like prior Presidents haven't done the same type of thing in the past.  Soleimani, while an important figure in Iran and the Middle East was, after all, easily replaceable.
President Trump uses and abuses his power of pardon to interfere with the rule of law based on how he believes it will reflect on him.
My husband served 21 years in the Navy and we both come from military families and have a son who served in the Army. Regardless of whether we like or dislike the President, a visit to the troops is good for morale. It is also normal for a President to make an unannounced visit to a combat zone to maintain the integrity of security.
It's difficult to say "normal or abnormal" because this is only the third time and the process is reserved for the most egregious of behaviors.
Presidents only have the Constitutional ability to nominate a justice to the SCOTUS, but cannot Constitutionally manipulate the Court or the rule of law for political purposes, especially for his own benefit.
Women's participation in politics in developing countries (and the southern US)
The delay led more damaging revelations to surface about Trump.
His general MO is to muck something up, semi-fix it, and take credit. This is an example.
He's using the pandemic to accomplish what he can't legislatively.
Lack of separation of powers and respect for the rule of law.
He evicted a highly competent person for a toady.
It's that he did it at the State of the Union that was inappropriate. Limbaugh is divisive in every way.
It wasn't a smart statement, but compared to what Trump gets away with?
Still important even though he wasn't removed. Draws a line in the sand.
The publicity was the weird thing. Adam Curtis would just call it 'hyper-normal'.
A celebrity lawyer for a celebrity politician.
Federalism? I'd have to know details than I know.
Elite backlash suggests limted precedential value.
The mafia would've handled it differently.
Judges and cabinet ministers too -- see Constitution of 1787.
This is a welcome change of holding another state's officials responsible for terrorism.  It is important as an expansion of US credibility; it does not open the door to other states doing this to American officials for the simple fact that others (1) lack the capabilities and (2) are deterred by greater US power and now evident will.
Lawyers are paid to offer arguments for their clients.  That Dershowtiz offers a dubious argument in this capacity is of little importance.  He holds no official government office.
Those who are underage and want to smoke will do so regardless of the age - just as they have for decades.
Presidents routinely give these medals to partisan supporters: Obama awarded this medal to Gloria Steinem and Harvey Milk - every bit the ideological nightmares to the right that Rush Limbaugh is to the left.
This further entrenches the partisanship infecting government today.  The national interest is now regularly subordinated to partisan interests.
I am missing how this differs from the prior question
Why no questions about COVID-19 and its effects on democracy?
I am not sure the case was made by Trump that the rules of war apply here. On the other hand, the men who were killed had tons of blood -- including American blood -- on their hands
The decision is debatable -- the fact that is it totally forgettable and inconsequential is not.
EVERY president/presidential administration prefers to recruit loyalists. Loyalty matters in politics
Sheer propaganda -- with no lasting effects
Postcommunism and politics of the European Union
Seems like politics as usual irrespective of the party.
Congress commenting on the Supreme Court is fine, it is unlikely to influence the appellate function of the court.
This is meddling in the functions of the court as it could be seen to be coercive and questions the integrity of certain Justices.
Renegotiation of trade deals is fairly normal business for governments. The manner in which the Trump administration has done so (by using nationalist rhetoric and justifications) falls outside the normal course of business.
Pelosi was playing the hyperpartisan game always hoping that the delay would help bring down - or at least damage Trump. It did not work and her action was actually used against her in the Senate process.
In fact the Senate has never removed any president from office. And in a forthcoming election year it made the reasonable decision to reject the House action ad let the voters decide. What was abnormal was its refusal to allow new testimony from witnesses - another sign of the hyper-partisanship in Congress.
Since the decision was predetermined the Senate majority leader just wanted to end the mess ASAP.
We are in the land of hyperpartisanship with a President who is a true outlier as chief executive. This has never happened before - with the possible exception of Andrew Johnson.
Vindman should have resigned before testifying. The President was within his rights to fire him.
It's a bad decision and sets a bad precedent. Limbaugh is an influentual  GOP operative and nothing more.
The House leadership made a bet that their extraordinary action would change public opinion against Trump and strengthen the argument for the Senate to vote for his removal. It proved to be a bad bet.
Russia and Central Europe and Diversity in U.S. politics
These questions - important as they may have seemed - and are - look today like they were put together a millennium ago, given all that's happened since January 2020.  Still, they deal with the reality of the continuing dysfunctionality in our politics - something that's hardened into concrete going back over the past fifty years. This reality has to be a matter of real concern.
Going against military authorities to pardon a convicted soldier is quite abnormal. It's mostly important because it shows Trump was willing to undermine military discipline in pursuit of personal political advantage.
Sadly, it has become normal in American politics for co-partisans to vote as the Senate did in this case. It reflects the serious deterioration in our the quality of US democracy.
Dershowitz's statement, which he later tried to moderate, fell far outside the normal understanding of presidential power. It was only semi-important because almost no political leader found it plausible. Still, the statement is in the record and could be used as a justification by this or a future president.
The president isn't normal, the House's response was.
Ad hominem remarks from a sitting president toward a leader of the opposition party are important and abnormal when publically stated.
We have had too presidential impeachment cases to make judgments about what is normal here.
That is heavy handed intervention that has been unheard of.
Doing it at the State of the Union Address was fully abnormal.
DOJ acts as the current President's personal lawyers rather than as the country's. And this instance undermines its own employees' recommendations to blatantly protect the president's interests.
It was brilliant tactically but it didn’t make much of a difference.
It is not good policy to shoot down foreign leaders. Still, we do it from time to time. It could have been a grave miscalculation that precipitated a war with Iran. But Iran is running on empty these days so Trump got away with it.
It was predictable that the Senate would not vote to convict. It has happened before. But not to hear evidence and to refuse to call witnesses is not normal. And for much of Congress to be intimidated and fearful of the president, that is worse than abnormal and could not be more important.
It is never about what the president thinks is legal or not, much less whether he thinks it would help him be re-elected. This is never a reason for any illegal action. The law is the law.
Shows the Senate is under the control of the Administration and completely manipulated to defend Trump regardless of the cost. It is reprehensible.
It shows contempt of a Congress and the people who elected them. It shows overweening arrogance and the ability of this administration to intimidate many in the Senate. It is blatant contempt for the rule of law.
Many countries are closing their borders to people from places where the virus is especially virulent. Even states are doing that now. Trump liked it.
I don’t really know the ins and out of 401 Ks.
Any impeachment is important. This one was especially so since the high crimes and misdemeanors were overt and intentional and contemptuous of Congress.
Abnormal for now, but I bet that with the expansion of social media, it will become increasingly normalized
Clearly both sides were very politically motivated and there's really no expectation that either side would rise above it.
Political appointments tend to be allies
Only mostly normal because of her timing.  Why did she proceed with vote on articles when she did (without more hearings) and then why did she wait to send them to the senate?
Harder to answer this one because we don't have a lot of presidential impeachment trials to look at in terms of establishing norms for this, but it did make the senate trial look more partisan and less impartial.
Important because career prosecutors resigned over the issue. I rated borderline because even though it made career prosecutors upset, it was within authority granted to Dept. of Justice officials to override.
campaigns, elections, public opinion, and voting behavior
Speaker Pelosi's decision to not send the articles right away is hard to evaluate because we've had so few impeachments of prominent politicians but was in reaction to the definitely abnormal behavior of the Senate Leader to coordinate with the White House.
The event would be normal if science were a leading input to public policy, but abnormal if it was a reaction to tobacco companies' conspiracy to defraud consumers and the public.
The vote was mostly normal. With only three Senate trials, it is tough to tell how normal the hearings were.
This is hard to assess in these terms. this action had no effect on the outcome nor did it undermine anyone's rights or standing.
I don't know how to answer this question. There are so few cases, but the completely partisan decision in this case is deeply disturbing.
Context is everything. That the US and China work out an agreement is important and to be expected. Substantively, it's abnormal that we have a trade issue w/ China (entirely caused by the US). There are legitimate issues in our economic relationships with China, but the way Trump handled them is dreadful
this kind of grandstanding is pretty standard
OMG. Egregious effort to undermine the rule of law.
Such vindictive actions are designed to intimidate people to prevent them from acting in ways that would hold the president responsible
This event was largely symbolic, which is important, but has limited impact on the integrity of our political system.
It's obviously not normal -- the third impeachment in our history. It's obviously important, only the third impeachment in our history.
Trump's attacks on the judiciary and by extension the rule of law are among the worst of his actions, which is saying a lot.
Modern liberal theory and welfare state policy
Makes a mockery of civilzed conventions and endangers our troops.
Impeachment is unfortunately inherently political, and partisanship won out.
The stonewalling exceeded anything in American history, including Watergtate and is a slap in the face of checks-and-balances.
While publicly opposing a President often results in departure from an adminstration, the firing of VIndman crossed a line.
Commenting on Justices is nothing new, although the wording could've been better.
While typically not publicly distributed, these lists are fairly common within political parties.
Although backtracked, Schumer's rhetoric was a clear and violent attack on judicial independence.
Keep it going! I find it to be a fascinating way to explore political attitudes both in the general public and among the academy.
Judges have to determine if this is or is not a legitimate exercise of executive privilege.
political economy and political institutions
Wasn't quite sure how to answer the important/unimportant item. Sticter travel restrictions/screening may have limited the outbreak.
Environmental public opinion, behavior, and power buliding.
Keep up the good work. I wonder how coronavirus impacts evaluations of the government - when many instiutitons are not yet changed?
Trump is not the first president to carry out targeted assassinations. This one's a bit different, especially for the lack of deliberation, but we've never been good on this.
He's an advocate, and made an extreme claim. That's to be expected. What's abnormal is how many people seemed to accept it.
Limbaugh is a polarizing figure, and to award a general medal to someone who demonizes half the population is to endorse that divisiveness.
International institutions; international political economy
Normal institutionalized power. Abnormal interference in military justice (established by Congress and overseen by the judiciary).
Important because of impeachment. Normal because it is a decision of the Senate on how to enact this constitutional process. The n of 3 doesn't provide sufficient precedent to set 'norms' for issues such as witnesses.
A normal process (chain of command within an executive agency directing actions in alignment with the principal) that appears to be distorted for personal gain.
The idea of a vengeful elected official rewarding supporters and punishing opponents is nothing new.
We would like officials to act within accepted norms and not abuse power. So abuse of power is abnormal. Holding officials accountable through institutional norms - such as the impeachment process - is normal.
Heavily focused on the executive - that's OK because of the outsized role of the President in US politics. If a non-political science faculty were to look at the "events" presented here, it would be reasonable to expect that they would see these as biased against the current President.  Where are the questions about SCOTUS, House, and Senate actions?
Very important precedent, done in Iraq, third country.
Set a very dangerous precedent, esp. for our military
Harvard professors say stupid things frequently.
Limits freedom of substantial chunk of population, but often done.
Presidential prerogative to appoint an unqualified person to the important position.
Very problematic argument and implies that executive has unlimited authority.
The executive has the power to remove such positions. But the circumstances raised concerns as to why they were removed.
Given the context, I think the term "normal" and "abnormal" may be problematic.
It is abnormal how flagrant the US violation of international law was (we are usually a bit more circumspect). The inability/unwillingness of democracies abroad to condemn the act was truly astounding.
Impeachment itself was abnormal but the House failing to fully exercise its investigative function and the majority leaders in the Senate explicitly putting party before country were both appalling.
This shows that the constitution is a gentlemen's agreement rather than a legal document.
If the President was willing to replace disloyal functionaries with people who knew  how to do their new jobs, this would be normal. His preference for loyalty over basic competence is abnormal.
Drone strikes for assassinations were widely used by Obama, and now by Trump.  This was a good strike, but Congress should have some oversight.  Not an abuse of power.
Trump uses blunt street language against a political rival which upsets people.  Schiff had a personal obsession with impeaching Trump, so Schiff deserves criticism for wasting the country's time.
Dershowitz was trying to clarify what is or is not an impeachable offense, which is a grey area.  This is loaded quote, and a question which reveals very little about our democratic process -- part of the rough and tumble of politics.
I wasn't aware that Congress raised the smoking age to 21, and not sure if this should be left to states.  Not an important question to debate.
Seems like a reasonable decision -- what are you getting at with this question?  This is a judgmental call which falls within the President's powers.
The judge who sentenced Roger Stone gave a shorter sentence than the prosecutor's recommendation, vindicating the DOJ officials.  This is biased question.
Removing Vindman from NSC was reasonable, firing Sondland was probably a mistake, but we withing presidential powers to appoint and remove ambassadors.
JFK appointed his brother as attorney general; Obama appointed Holder and Lynch, loyalists as AG's.  What's new?
House played partisan politics with impeachment, and so did the Senate in acquitting the president.  Constitutional procedures and norms were followed, more or less.  It's both a political and legal procedure.  The House wasted our time - get over it.
This survey is sophomoric, with leading and biased questions against the present administration.  It does not get to any of the big issues regarding the health of our democracy.  The Madisonian system of checks and balances, federalism, elections, and robust political debate are continuing to work reasonable well under Trump.  This sounds like an over-reaction by partisan academics and is kind of embarrassing for professional political scientists.
I think that given the partisan composition of the Senate, this outcome was expected, even if the situation itself was extraordinary
Going against the wishes of uniformed commanders is unusual
The situation that led Dersh to make that comment is abnormal, but that comment was within the normal range of things one might hear from lawyer representing the president given the context.
Not totally without precedent, but I would argue that a norm against this does exist. Stone was not the most important case in the world, but signals impunity.
This action has made impeachment dead letter law. The US executive will no longer be restrained by a Congress of his or her own party, and this is a terrible precedent.
Unfortunately this presidential norm-breaking is now par for the course
It's an appalling justification for executive lawlessness, and it's one that gave cover to the President's defenders to defend the indefensible.
It's too early to judge the importance of this deal, and will depend on how well China actually follows through on its nebulous commitments.
This is politically unimportant, but will have an important lasting public health benefit
Barring foreign nationals is not hugely unusual, but unfortunately this seemed to be the entirety of the Trump administration's response to the covid-19 threat.
Trump's acquittal in the Senate is more important than the impeachment in the House, and makes the impeachment process for presidents dead letter.
Wasn't sure about normality. There is a process in the Constitution, so it is a considered process. It just doesn't happen much. Sorry for the confusion.
The president raised the specter of violence and retribution for someone performing their duties under the Constitution.
It would seem like kind of an odd thing to do given that it is legal for adults (18 and up) to smoke and prohibiting adults from doing things to hurt themselves but not others limits personal freedom.
I don't think this is problematic. The president can appoint who he wants to have an administrator who will pursue the president's vision. It is a bit unusual to have someone with so little experience in the position, though.
Limbaugh's record is that a demagogue-and worse. For a president to reward and thereby encourage dishonest and harmful discourse in society strikes me as abnormal.
Again, it's abnormal in that it does not happen often. But given the circumstances (what the president did) it is normal in that it is what the Constitution calls for.
Abnormal in the sense that it does not happen often. Not abnormal in the sense that the impeachment was problematic. One might say that, given the circumstances, impeachment in this case was normal in that it is an outcome that should have occurred.
The pressure for party-line voting is what makes it mostly abnormal.  Difficult to answer because impeachment is abnormal, but that is not what is asked.  Strict party-line voting in the US is democratically abnormal
As with the Court, the President should stay out of Congress's workings.  He should neither render a medical opinion on nor threaten a member of the House.
Dershowitz is here arguing for what the American revolutionaries and constitution-makers fought and argued against.  He is arguing for 'L'état, c'est moi', which seems a rather oddly un-American attitude.
Well, if I were a 19 year old smoker, I'd complain; but it is really normal legislation against a recognized health danger.
Normal activity -- see previous Presidents.  Semi-important, because showing support for troops, while routine, is important.
the real issue with politically-connected appointments has to do not with their existence -- they happen -- but with the expertise of the appointee (which in this case seems low).
I thought I'd answered this, and my comments showed what I see as ambiguities
'Abnormal' in that impeachment is 'abnormal'.  (Could also be 'normal', in that his abuse of power is 'abnormal'.)  'Important' because the PResident should not hold military aid hostage to his personal political concerns.
The President should stay out of the Supreme Court's workings, by and large.
19th & 20th (& 21st) centuries, Hegel, Marx, utopias, democracy
This is abnormal, because pandemics are abnormal. It was necessary, though.
If this were an isolated event, it would have greater urgency. But since his tweets are often outrageous, and he's now consumed by COVID 19, he may no follow through on such an authoritarian-sounding threat.
This is abnormal because impeachment votes have only happened three times in American history. It's therefore also important.
too few impeachments to conclude anything about what constitutes "normal"
would be interesting to get age / generational breakdowns.
The US usually maintains a stance of not assassinating foreign leaders.  To kill Soleimani, we had to highlight his links to terrorism.
It's problematic for the President to supersede the military justice system.
This is a horrid argument, but it's mostly irrelevant if the President's personal attorney (not a public official) says it.
The lack of experience is troubling but not unprecedented.
Schumer got caught referring to a prior reference.  It's similar to talking about "targeting" political opponents in the wake of a mass shooting.
This is hard to classify.  It's reassuring that the process can happen.  In that way, it's "normal", i.e. in keeping with our norms.  However, the fact that it happened is quite abnormal and speaks to the nature of this administration.
An independent judiciary is very important.
It was one of the only ways Democrats had to let the seriousness of the impeachment set in before the predetermined outcome in the senate played out.
It was a legitimate point but stated in an unfortunate way.
For political appointees this would seem normal and unimportant; for civil service, probably not.
I see it as a political assassination, not an act of legitimate war. That said, the US has done that sort of thing in other administrations too.
There have been three impeachment trials of presidents and this is how they have gone. But there was a lot more clear and convincing evidence in this case. The impeachment clause appears to be a dead letter in cases where the Senate and the President are the same party.
It raises federalism issues but smoking age isn't a very important issue.
This kind of direct attack on SC justices in an overtly political manner is close to unprecedented in recent history. Attacks on the Court in general could be expected but not attacks on individual Justices.
This action does not fit within a predictable Us foreign policy
Conviction has never occurred as it is a political not legal action
The Phase 1 agreement was an artificial conflict, so its importance is diminished
Firing an employee for perceived loyalty issues is not professional
The President values political and personal loyalty over experience and knowledge
The President is rewarding his friends and allies rather than merit
Checks on the power of the executive are important
Foreign policy analysis and middle east politics
The President does not respect the process of the law
If you read the Federalist papers, impeachment was always going to be political, but there was not even a semblance or impartiality or fairness
There is no control now of executive behavior and since the Senate will not conduct an appropriate trial, the President can literally do whatever he wants, including shooting someone on 5th Avenune
Congress has the power to do so under the interstate commerce clause and under its tax and spending power
A country has the right to protect itself from foreign nationals who represent a legitimate threat to the health and welfare of the county
Given the current "the President cannot be indicted" it means that the only avenue for abuse of power is impeachment
Another example of how Trump is perverting the pardon power.  Pardons for him are political, not a matter of redemption.
Given there are only three impeachment trials in our history, it is hard to say what is normal or abnormal.  So I took a middle position.
Of course, Nixon has his lists too, and every president will appoint allies.  Trump has taken a normal process and perverted it in ways most of us would not have expected. Need I mention the question of "norms."  Part of my concern is with the aberrant and authoritarian nature of the contemporary Republican party.
The problem with this appointment is the guy is a political hack.  It is hard to think of another national security advisor who is less qualified.  I thought Bolten's appointment was dangerous but I could not argue that he was not qualified.
Another example of Trump trying to manipulate courts for his own personal and political benefit.  After Dred Scott, Lincoln savagely criticized the decision while upholding the legitimacy of the Court and the Constitution.  Trump's behavior is not just reprehensible, it is beyond the pale.
American Political Development -- History and Politics
It legitimizes assassination of foreign leaders.
It undermines good order and discipline within the US military, something the commander in chief should NEVER do,
Republican senators ignored or dismissed evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors.
This is not a normal president and administration. We have a cult of personality and a regime, not an administration.
DOJ has been thoroughly politicized under Barr, who is little more than the president's public defender.
Mostly normal - the US carries out strikes like this all the time. Whether it was the right or wrong decision is another matter entirely. But it is one way in which foreign policy is conducted in the present day. Important - yes, to the extent it has an impact on relations in the Middle East and the possibility of the US achieving other goals such as an agreement on a nuclear deal.
Mostly normal - yes, because the president has pardon powers he is entitled to use, as past presidents have. Whether he was correct to pardon this individual is another matter entirely.  Mostly important - the president likes to use his executive powers more so than many other past presidents, and in this instance it brought him into conflict with figures high up in the military who had seen fit to punish this particular officer for his actions.
Mostly abnormal - the president "can" critique his political opponents, but past convention has been that presidents either do this in private or choose their words carefully in public. President Trump has demonstrated that he does neither.  Mostly important - The president speaking ill of a member of Congress from another party is not the most serious of situations, but the manner in which he does it has only added to the partisan divisions of late.
Abnormal - the whole impeachment process was abnormal, but in this case there were many aspects of the process that stood out. The refusal of the White House to comply with requests for information/witnesses, even after Congress had sought to compel them via subpoenas suggested a breakdown in the system of checks and balances. That the president's administration would openly defy Congress in such a fashion should be of concern to everyone.
Normal - this is what Congress does. It votes on laws, some of which involve products that can cause harm to the public. Important - Congress' actions in this respect can potentially have a big impact on public health (as well as the profits of tobacco companies).
The action is abnormal. These are strange times but it's not clear that banning foreign nationals who've visited China would help reduce the spread of the virus, and the action appears to frame the virus as a "foreign" problem imported from overseas. It is important because the administration's actions influence public opinion, or at least some segment of opinion.
Mostly normal - As commander into the chief, there's nothing strange about visiting the troops. It was a little unusual in terms of how the visit was executed. Mostly important - he wished to convey his support for the troops and score positive points with the public for travelling on the holiday. It looks "presidential."
Abnormal - the Department of Justice "can" intervene where sentencing recommendations are concerned but in this instance it strongly suggested they were doing so at the president's behest given that Roger Stone was a well-known supporter of the president.  Important - It suggests a corruption of the judicial process. Rather than leave prosecutors to their job, the Department of Justice intervened to help a friend of the president. This suggests that knowing the president helps in legal matters, which is hardly indicative of draining the swamp.
While the Constitution provides a mechanism by which presidents can be held to task for their conduct in office, it has rarely been invoked. President Trump's impeachment by the House is not abnormal from a legal perspective since the House has a defined role in such proceedings and can use this power if it votes to do so. It is abnormal from the perspective that it was required to do so in the first place, based on the conduct of Trump while in office. It is important because the move strongly suggests there was evidence that Trump had used the powers of his office for political gain over an election opponent. That is not something he should be using his power and influence for, and especially not when it involves holding up Congressional funds.
Political behaviour, political institutions, elections.
I don't recall a leading Senator (or the like) directing such a pointed comment and criticism to sitting justices on the Court in the recent (modern) history of our American government. As such, it seems to me clearly an "abnormal" event. I feel much less certain, however, that it will prove to be particularly consequential.
History of political thought; German social and political thought