Trump setting himself up for Impeachment.
Trump is getting the Chinese to help with investigating Biden to help with re-election, but there is one thing is forgetting: The Federal Law. The Law states that “it is illegal for “a person to solicit, accept, or receive” anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a United States election.” Trump has not gotten any information before his plot was found out. The President was bribing the Chinese to help him win the election by digging up secrets on Biden.
On October 3, 2019, Donald Trump seeks help from foreign countries to help him win for his reelection and there were already talks about people trying to impeach him for seeking help from the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky.
He is using foreign countries to investigate the Bidens and dig up some dirt. If they find anything serious and corrupted, Trump has a huge chance of winning. But, a president using a third party to find some secrets about another political rival seems to be “flagrantly violating the law.” Should we have a president that tried to win by using despicable methods? No, we would like a president that is clean and would improve foreign affairs while also improving America.
ahntkd99
carahall
andrewbecharaa
athenapup4
bane1900
bestbaker123
bmdpiano
comp0327
compclass8
cynicalwordsmith22
doglover441
drippydoughnut
drpaleontology
gcatt310
givemeclouttokens
hershey515
iamsleepy01
imagination4421
influenza123
jackso23
Jayv23
kraemercali
lazybear8
lelebxby
lg102015
lovericeandnoodles
lucbe219
morra2024
mpsj13
roses0102
Sub2MigzFilms
smellycat23
tenere84
thefrontbottom
voxpopuli75
whosyourcookie22
yankeefan25
Newspaperlessness 
Following feedback, your Editorial still does not make clear how the President solicited intelligence from the Chinese or how his offer amounted to bribery. Without that basis in fact, your charges sound like conspiracy theory
LikeLike
Hey Sleepy,
I meant to post this during the lecture on 11/19.
For starters, I think it would be best if you stated your thesis much more clearly. I assume your claim is that the Breathalyzer is so inaccurate that it shouldn’t be used by law enforcement. You had my attention as a reader. But you lost me soon after for two reasons.
I know argument is the most important factor in an Editorial’s success, but I highly recommend fixing all the grammar errors in your essay. In short, they fall in the list of grammar errors discussed on Thursday. Examples: “We shouldn’t, examples show…” should be replaced with “We shouldn’t; examples show…” “Judges HAVE thrown out…” “… have thrown out more than 30,000 breath test (no comma) due to (no “the”) human errors” means.” I’m sure you can fix these errors.
Most importantly, you lost my attention because you haven’t convinced the readers that this could be them, or people they care about. In other words, why should I care? Inaccurate Breathalyzers do seem concerning, but this essay could communicate that idea better.
Your thesis, evidence and reasoning in the first three paragraphs lead to the conclusion that Breathalyzers are so inaccurate that they should be tossed out, but your conclusion is basically “machines aren’t perfect,” and “just don’t drink and drive.” You promised your audience with a new argument and a new way of thinking but delivered with advice that is common knowledge. You should reconsider what you’re trying to argue and apply it accordingly to your conclusion. You can do it.
LikeLike
I think this has a strong opening. There is evidence for the claims that were given. Try to make. ore of a connection with the readers, overall that will make it much stronger.
LikeLike
this editorial is overall good in a basic way. it can definitely be better overall, but it fulfills the readers expectations.
LikeLike
I feel that the writers idea was strong, but the opinion and thesis statement is a bit hard to find at first. I agree with the opinion that a reading off of a machine that could result in jail time is completely unethical and needs to be changed. I also liked how specific some of the evidence was when iamsleepy included statistics and numbers to further convince their audience of their opinions.
LikeLike
Your first paragraph does a good job of giving the reader the required background information. However you should open up with a claim or judgment in order to avoid the “funnel approach”. All in all your editorial is persuasive but, could be improved by adding a link to an outside source.
LikeLike
The opening builds up to the argument and I do appreciate your question being answered immediately after you asked it.
-I did find a few grammar errors. I did not see anything on spelling, but there were a few sentence structure errors that seemed like you were missing a word or two to make your statement make sense.
-I think you can make your work more interesting with an anecdote weather it be personal or one that you read about. It would help the reader see how this is an issue that needs to be solved.
LikeLike
I thought this was a very good editorial and I liked it a lot. the opening statement and paragraph was very strong and easy to follow the rest of the way through the editorial.
LikeLike
I feel that a specific example of either a wrongly convicted person’s experience or of a case that had such evidence thrown out would be helpful. I also feel that more elaboration to the facts should be used. You state that cases have been thrown out in two states, but do not use that information, just state it.
LikeLike
When you open with your starting paragraph I would attempt to put your opinion or argument earlier on. You don’t know which side your defending until the paragraph is over. Although, it is a strong argument and you do get the argument your expressing. There are a couple grammar mistakes in the writing as well. They can be fixed easily with rereading your work. Lastly, your last sentence is kind of off topic where you were arguing that they should take away breathalyzer test, but then you end of as people just shouldn’t drink or drive. It’s just a little of topic of what your arguing.
LikeLike
I thought that this was a well written piece. It was easy to follow because everyones knows a thing or two about the topic and has at least some sort of prior knowledge to the situation at hand. Because of this you were able to hit on some key points and not overdoing the background information/data. The thesis is proven clearly and well supported.
LikeLike
good strong opening good job
LikeLike
Regarding the Professor’s question, I believe a combination of anecdotal evidence and illustration in the form of shocking statistics. The former can make a problem more relatable to the reader. However, an anecdote lacks universal applicability, which is exactly where statistics come in, showing that the author’s [terrible] experience is something many people go through
LikeLike
I think the author had a great idea to start with. They open with a strong opinionated paragraph, but reading further on shows they aren’t as passionate as they were when they started. I think they simply just wrote down facts without trying to connect to the reader. Adding a personal anecdote about someone who was wrongly accused and who lost a job and faced dire consequences to appeal to the reader’s emotions would help convince the reader that we shouldn’t use the breathalyzer.
LikeLike
I think this essay is actually very well. You gave evidence to your claims and nothing was repeated or hard to understand. I think maybe to help really make the audience connect with your writing you should add in a case where the innocent was accused and wasn’t told about the inaccurate test that ultimately got them arrested in the first place.
LikeLike
I really liked the first paragraph- their answer was stated clearly and backed up with an important fact. I am sleepy’s proposal at the end to not drink and drive is obviously the best solution. It is unfortunate so many drunk drivers get locked up from faulty breathalyzers but it is the driver’s fault they got behind the wheel.
LikeLike
Sleepy, I’m doing a quick round of feedback this morning to get the revision ball rolling. Feel free to put your post back into Feedback Please if you want more reactions or a different sort of feedback.
You’re right, it’s dull, because you’re not asking us to place ourselves in the impossible situation drivers find themselves. Hundreds of drivers and thousands of convictions don’t communicate the way MY situation would convince me there was a problem if I found myself on the roadside contemplating the breath that could put me away.
Some ways to personalize and drive this story home include:
—Asking readers to visualize themselves on the roadside after, say, a glass of celebratory anniversary champagne.
—An analogy to our 5th-amendment right against self-incrimination. Isn’t breathing into that machine “giving testimony” in a legal sense? And if we refuse to make that statement, should that refusal be used to convict us?
—A rundown of the cascade of consequences that can result from a wrongful conviction based on faulty evidence: what happens to our insurance? what happens to our reputation? could a DUI cost us a job?
—Find a horrible test case in which a flawed conviction had tragic consequences.
—Include the judges’ perspective. Law enforcement loves the breathalyzer, I imagine. But judges who are throwing out test results by the thousands must have a different attitude, right?
LikeLike
Feedback: I feel that there is something important I’m missing and could add more because it is pretty dull. I would like to know what I should add to improve it.
LikeLike