DOCSLIB.ORG

Study of the Impeachment Process

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

FAKULTA SOCIÁLNÍCH STUDIÍ Study of the Impeachment Process Bakalářská práce ALEŠ POHL Vedoucí práce: doc. Andrew Lawrence Roberts, Ph.D. Katedra politologie obor Politologie Brno 2020 STUDY OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS Bibliografický záznam Autor: Aleš pohl Fakulta sociálních studií Masarykova univerzita Katedra politologie Název práce: Studie procesu impeachmentu Studijní program: Politologie, bakalářský studijní program Studijní obor: Politologie Vedoucí práce: doc. Andrew Lawrence Roberts, Ph.D. Rok: 2020 Počet stran: 64 Klíčová slova: Proces impeachmentu, Impeachment, Prezident Spojených Států, Donald J. Trump, William J. Clinton, Robert Mueller, Kenneth Starr 2 STUDY OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS Bibliographic record Author: Aleš pohl Faculty of Social Studies Masaryk University Department of Political Science Title of Thesis: Study of the Impeachment Process Degree Programme: Political Science, Bachelor’s degree programme Field of Study: Political Science Supervisor: doc. Andrew Lawrence Roberts, Ph.D. Year: 2020 Number of Pages: 64 Keywords: Impeachment process, Impeachment, US President, Donald J. Trump, William J. Clinton, Robert Mueller, Kenneth Starr 3 STUDY OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS Abstrakt Tato bakalářská práce se zabývá problematikou procesu impeachmentu Prezidenta Spojených Států Amerických. Cílem práce je popsat a vysvětlit samotný institut impeachmentu a jeho historii a následně popsat a vysvětlit dva vzácné případy impeachmentu Williama J. Clintona a Donalda J. Trumpa, a to od jejich samotných počátků, celkový proces a jeho také jeho dopady. Závěrem práce je komparace těchto procesů a vysvětlení a komparace jejich hlavních bodů, událostí, procesů a osobností. 4 STUDY OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS Abstract This bachelor thesis is dealing with the process of impeachment of the President of the United States of America. The aim of this thesis is to de- scribe and explain the institute of impeachment itself and its history, and subsequently describe the two rare cases of impeachment of William J. Clinton and Donald J. Trump, from the very beginning of the process, its progress, and its effects. Its closing part is the comparison of these pro- cesses and explaining and comparing their key points, events, proce- dures, and individuals. 5 STUDY OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS Čestné prohlášení Prohlašuji, že jsem bakalářskou práci na téma Study of the Impeachment Process zpracoval sám. Veškeré prameny a zdroje informací, které jsem použil k sepsání této práce, byly citovány v textu a jsou uvedeny v seznamu použitých pramenů a literatury. V Brně 28. prosince 2020 Aleš pohl 7 STUDY OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS Poděkování Chci poděkovat vedoucímu této bakalářské práce doc. Andrew Lawrenci Robertsovi, Ph.D., za jeho cenné poznatky, rady a připomínky, které umožnili vznik této práce, a jeho nekonečnou trpělivost v náročném roce a závěru studia. Šablona DP 3.0.6-FSS (2019-11-29) © 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Masarykova univerzita 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of contents 1 Introduction 13 2 The Impeachment Process 15 2.1 History ........................................................................................................... 15 2.2 Impeachment as determined by the constitution ......................... 15 2.3 What are „high Crimes and Misdemeanors“? ................................. 17 2.4 How does impeachment work? ............................................................ 18 3 Impeachment of William J. Clinton 20 3.1 The Fiske-Starr Report ............................................................................ 20 3.2 Paula Jones ................................................................................................... 21 3.3 Linda Tripp ................................................................................................... 21 3.4 The case against William J. Clinton ..................................................... 22 3.5 The impeachment process of William J. Clinton ............................ 23 3.6 The Senate trial of William J. Clinton ................................................. 26 3.7 The aftermath of William J. Clinton’s impeachment .................... 28 4 Impeachment of Donald J. Trump 29 4.1 The Russia probe ....................................................................................... 29 4.2 The investigation of Rober S. Mueller ................................................ 31 4.3 The phone call ............................................................................................. 33 4.4 The Trump-Ukraine scandal .................................................................. 33 4.5 The case against Donald J. Trump ....................................................... 34 4.6 The impeachment process of Donald J. Trump .............................. 35 4.7 The Senate trial of Donald J. Trump ................................................... 36 4.8 The aftermatch of Donald J. Trump’s impeachment .................... 38 5 Comparison of Clinton’s and Trump’s impeachments 39 6 Conclusion 42 11 OBSAH Sources 44 Attachment A: Bill Clinton approval ratings 52 Attachment B: Donald Trump approval ratings 57 12 SOURCES 1 Introduction This thesis has been written shortly after the events of the successful impeachment of 2019. A presidency, which has been in a constant local and international spotlight since even before its start, has inevitably brought a vast amount of attention to the entire impeachment process. It has also found key similarities and differences between the two latest impeachments – that of Donald Trump in 2019, and of Bill Clinton from 1998. This thesis will be aiming to study, describe and explain the pro- cesses and results of the impeachment of William J. Clinton in 1998, as well as the events leading up to it. It will examine and explain the mo- tives, procedures, and results of not only the impeachment itself but also the surrounding factors, events and individuals and their strategies. And although Clinton’s impeachment has been already well described by many authors and political scientists, it has not yet been fully put to the side and compared with the most recent impeachment of Donald J. Trump. And as the events from the latest impeachment process are still very recent, the thesis will offer the same analysis and explanation of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump in 2019. Impeachment is one of the most vital tools of the constitution of the United States of America. It assures the possibility of bringing charges against a civil officer working for the country’s government or judicature. And although impeachment is a process that can be initiated against the President, Vice President, and all Civil Officers, like Judges or Governors (Constitution of the United States, Article II Section IV). For the purpose of this thesis, we shall be further discussing mainly the impeachment process involving the highest government official, the President of the United States. The first chapters will examine the core of the impeachment process as a legal process, its origins and functions, some of its more tricky parts, and the overall development of the process in both history and individual cases. The subsequent chapter will be fully focused on the impeachment process of William J. Clinton, following the case from its very roots, making its way through the initialy contained and separate parts of the story, that eventually merged into a story that was seen as enough to impeach the President. Followed by the impeachment process in the 13 SOURCES House of Representatives and trial in the Senate, the chapter is closed by the impacts that were following the whole process. The chapter about the impeachment of Donald J. Trump will be of very simmilar form. Following the President’s story from the beginning of where the allegations started to pick up, the chapter examines the main events that lead all the way to the beginning of the impeachment process, once again following it all the way to the aftermath of the proceeding. The last chapter offers a complete comparison of both of those historical events from start to finish, highlighting both their differences and similarities and explaining this comparison’s stance against the test of time. The thesis also offers three main questions being examined throughout the work: • What are the key differences between Clinton’s and Trump’s impeachment? • How come both presidents got acquitted in the Senate? • Was the impeachment process failed and in vain, or did it still make a difference? These, and other questions, will be answered in the following chapters. 14 SOURCES 2 The Impeachment Process 2.1 History “When our founders wrote about removing the president for “high crimes and misdemeanors”, they were thinking first and foremost of a commander in chief who wielded the powers of the presidency for the benefit of himself instead of the benefit of the people.” (Katyal, 2019, 10) The introduction of the impeachment process happened alongside the creation of the Constitution of the United States of America in 1787. The Revolutionary War with the British Empire has set the New World on a very different path than its counterparts on the Old Continent. A path without a King, without absolutism, without a sole leader with a right to act as he pleases, as he is blessed by the power from God himself. No, the newly built confederacy has chosen the way of democracy, without di- vine rulers and their subjects. It established a system, in which the power was vested in its citizens, and was merely bestowed to the government
Recommended publications
  • Continuity Within Change: the German-American Foreign and Security Relationship During President Clinton’S First Term”

    Continuity Within Change: the German-American Foreign and Security Relationship During President Clinton’S First Term”

    “Continuity within Change: The German-American Foreign and Security Relationship during President Clinton’s First Term” Dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades Dr. phil. bei dem Fachbereich Politik- und Sozialwissenschaften der Freien Universität Berlin vorgelegt von Thorsten Klaßen Berlin 2008 Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Eberhard Sandschneider Zweitgutachter: Priv.-Doz. Dr. Peter Rudolf Datum der Disputation: 10.12.2008 2 Table of Contents Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. 6 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 7 A Note on Sources .................................................................................................................... 12 I. The United States After the End of the Cold War ................................................................ 13 I.1. Looking for the Next Paradigm: Theoretical Considerations in the 1990s.................... 13 I.1.1 The End of History ................................................................................................... 13 I.1.2 The Clash of Civilizations ....................................................................................... 15 I.1.3 Bipolar, Multipolar, Unipolar? ................................................................................ 17 I.2. The U.S. Strategic Debate .............................................................................................
  • Specious Poisons?: Reputation, Gender, and Democratic Politics (Under the Direction of Susan Bickford.)

    Specious Poisons?: Reputation, Gender, and Democratic Politics (Under the Direction of Susan Bickford.)

    SPECIOUS POISONS?: REPUTATION, GENDER, AND DEMOCRATIC POLITICS Erin N. Taylor A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science. Chapel Hill 2006 Approved by Advisor: Susan Bickford Reader: Michael Lienesch Reader: John McGowan Reader: Jeff Spinner-Halev Reader: Marco Steenbergen ABSTRACT ERIN N. TAYLOR: Specious Poisons?: Reputation, Gender, and Democratic Politics (Under the direction of Susan Bickford.) Suggesting that reputation and gossip have been largely ignored by contemporary political theorists, I argue that both reputation and the gossip that helps to constitute it are important aspects of our communal and political lives. I begin with the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau as representative of a larger early modern discourse that identified the desire for reputation as one that is central to human beings. Arguing that this desire for reputation simultaneously poses great dangers and great power for political communities, Rousseau’s vision urges careful attention to political arrangements as a way of harnessing the positive effects of the desire for reputation. In my second chapter, I move to a focus on the relationship between reputation and gender, interrogating the necessity that women maintain spotless sexual reputations (a central feature to Rousseau’s political schema) in light of both Mary Wollstonecraft’s critique of Rousseau as well as my examination of the fate of Rousseau’s heroines. Turning to the work of Harriet Taylor and John Stuart Mill, I contend that their arguments about the stifling effects of reputational politics for individual liberty point to a nuanced understanding of the differential effects of reputation for individuals in various echelons of society.
  • The Impeachment of President Clinton: an Ugly Mix of Three Powerful Forces

    The Impeachment of President Clinton: an Ugly Mix of Three Powerful Forces

    POPP_FMT.DOC 11/14/00 10:55 AM THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT CLINTON: AN UGLY MIX OF THREE POWERFUL FORCES KAREN A. POPP* I INTRODUCTION President Clinton should not have been impeached by the House of Representatives and, once impeached, was properly acquitted by the Senate. Thus, it should come as no surprise that I agree with much of what Professor Susan Low Bloch has written in her article, A Report Card on the Impeachment: Judging the Institutions That Judged President Clinton.1 As Professor Bloch indicates, it is essential for us to assess how Congress arrived at the point of impeaching President Clinton, how the impeachment process itself worked, and what we can learn from it.2 Indeed, much has already been written and said on these topics, and these issues will no doubt continue to be debated and analyzed for years to come. So, how do I rate the impeachment process of President Clinton? I would give it a failing grade. Although the Senate reached the right result by acquitting the President, the fact that the Senate voted as it did is cold comfort. The impeachment process should have never gone that far. In effect, the second parachute finally opened, just before the impeachment process hit the ground. One nevertheless wonders, “Why did the first parachute fail?” As the events were unfolding, it appeared that the 1998-99 impeachment debacle resulted in large part from an ugly mix of three extremely powerful forces: an independent counsel who abused his virtually unlimited power; extreme congressional partisanship that was motivated by the desire to gain control of the government; and media outlets that continuously sought to profit from the sensationalism of it all and consistently flouted standards of professional journalism along the way.
  • Clinton Presidential Records in Response to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests Listed in Attachment A

    Clinton Presidential Records in Response to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests Listed in Attachment A

    VIA EMAIL (LM 2019-030) February 5, 2019 The Honorable Pat A. Cipollone Counsel to the President The White House Washington, D.C. 20502 Dear Mr. Cipollone: In accordance with the requirements of the Presidential Records Act (PRA), as amended, 44 U.S.C. §§2201-2209, this letter constitutes a formal notice from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to the incumbent President of our intent to open Clinton Presidential records in response to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests listed in Attachment A. These records, consisting of 19,503 pages, have been reviewed for all applicable FOIA exemptions, resulting in 2,274 pages restricted in whole or in part. NARA is proposing to open the remaining 17,229 pages. A copy of any records proposed for release under this notice will be provided to you upon your request. We are also concurrently informing former President Clinton’s representative, Bruce Lindsey, of our intent to release these records. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 2208(a), NARA will release the records 60 working days from the date of this letter, which is May 1, 2019, unless the former or incumbent President requests a one-time extension of an additional 30 working days or asserts a constitutionally based privilege, in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 2208(b)-(d). Please let us know if you are able to complete your review before the expiration of the 60 working day period. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 2208(a)(1)(B), we will make this notice available to the public on the NARA website.
  • The Starr Report Clinton Pdf

    The Starr Report Clinton Pdf

    The Starr Report Clinton Pdf Is Rudie intermontane or bareheaded after protractile Rodd categorised so kinda? Jean-Luc never rebaptized any harpoon wiggle inconclusively, is Dwaine sweetmeal and phoniest enough? Allopathic Hank fubs temporisingly or pillage stiltedly when Frederico is simon-pure. Currie testified that Ms. Alternatively transfixed and starr. 2 Referral from Independent Counsel Kenneth W Starr in Conformity with the Requirements. Lewinsky, she advance the President resumed their sexual contact. That I study the biological son and former President William Jefferson Clinton I having many. Starr Report Wikipedia. Constitution set because as impeachable offenses. What kinds of activities? Make your investment into the leaders of tomorrow through the Bill of Rights Institute today! This income that learn will keep emitting events with dry old property forever. American firms knew what they all those facts in the senate watergate episode. Links to documents about Whitewater investigation President Clinton's impeachment and Jones v Clinton. Starr has been accused of leaking prejudicial grand jury material in an plate to ship opinion said the Lewinsky case. Lewinsky would be debates about. Report new york post vince foster murder hillary clinton starr report the starr. Lee is the gifts he testified that a pdf ebooks without help from the park hyatt hotel that the independent counsel regarding the disclosures in the decade. PDF Twenty years later Bill Clinton's impeachment in. Howey INgov. Moody handled the report contained at that. Clinton could thus slide down impeachment and trial involve the Senate. To print the document click on Original Document link process open an original PDF.
  • HILLARY's SECRET WAR the CLINTON CONSPIRACY to MUZZLE INTERNET JOURNALISTS

    HILLARY's SECRET WAR the CLINTON CONSPIRACY to MUZZLE INTERNET JOURNALISTS

    * HILLARY'S SECRET WAR THE CLINTON CONSPIRACY to MUZZLE INTERNET JOURNALISTS. RICHARD POE Copyright (c) 2004 by Richard Poe. All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means - electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, scanning, or other - except for brief quotations in critical reviews or articles, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Published in Nashville, Tennessee, by WND Books. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data. Poe, Richard, 1958-. Hillary's Secret War : The Clinton Conspiracy To Muzzle Internet Journalism / Richard Poe. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-7852-6013-7 Printed in the United States of America 04 05 06 07 08 QW 5432. To my wife Marie. CONTENTS. Foreword. Preface. Introduction. 1. Through the Looking Glass. 2. Hillary's Shadow Team. 3. Why Hillary Fears the Internet. 4. Hillary's Power. 5. Web Underground. 6. The Clinton Body Count. 7. Hillary's Enemy List. 8. The Drudge Factor. 9. The Chinagate Horror. 10. SlapHillary.com. 11. The Drudge Wars. 12. Angel in the Whirlwind. Epilogue A Time for Heroes. In Memory of Barbara Olson. FOREWORD. BY JIM ROBINSON. HILLARY'S SECRET WAR by Richard Poe is the first book I've read that really pulls together the story of the Internet underground during the Clinton years. I was thrilled to read it. This story has never been told before, and I'm proud to say that I was part of it, in my own small way. We poured a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into building FreeRepublic.com and organizing a cyber- community of tens of thousands of Freeper activists all over the United States.
  • Contact the Phoenix Project

    Contact the Phoenix Project

    CONTACT THE PHOENIX PROJECT “YE SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU MAD!n VOLUME 7, NUMBER 10 NEWS REVIEW $ 3.00 JANUARY 3, 1995 SpotlightNow l?h$zg On Arkansas Gov. Guy Tucker Free RichardWavne Snell! J/2/95 #l HATONN EDITORIAL TO GOVERNOR GUY TUCKER, ARKANSAS: * Mr. Tucker-the eyes of the WORLD are focused ON YOU. We know you INSIDE THIS ISSUE thought the opening of 1995 would be parades of roses and re-inforced rings- through-noses as the New World Order settles in for the FINAL KILL. NO SIR, To Better See Our Plight, Look To Canadian Parasites, p.2 we-the-people are not only not going to march to the ring-bear-er, we aregoing to hang rings on or about the alternativeportions of anatomy of the PARASITES The (C.I.A.) Pipeline, Part XII, p.6 who have taken our FREE NATION which was once UNDER GOD WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE for ALL. Recent Sky Activity Is Secret Technology In Action, p.8 As you will find as you turn through this paper- WE KNOW!! We KNOW Donahue Show Tries To Railroad Militias, p.8 all about the antics and total miscarriage of all Justice in our sick judicial system and throughout the so-called *‘government(s)” of our also ONCE Great Parasites, Pets And Other Ethical Matters, p. 12 Nation. You have opportunity here, with the spotlight shining directly upon your Criminal Benchwarming Judges? Keep Patriot SpotIight Blazing, p. 14 person-to SERVE: the people, God and OUR Country.
  • Special Counsels, Independent Counsels, and Special Prosecutors: Options for Independent Executive Investigations Name Redacted Legislative Attorney

    Special Counsels, Independent Counsels, and Special Prosecutors: Options for Independent Executive Investigations Name Redacted Legislative Attorney

    Special Counsels, Independent Counsels, and Special Prosecutors: Options for Independent Executive Investigations name redacted Legislative Attorney June 1, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R44857 Special Counsels, Independent Counsels, and Special Prosecutors Summary Under the Constitution, Congress has no direct role in federal law enforcement and its ability to initiate appointments of any prosecutors to address alleged wrongdoings by executive officials is limited. While Congress retains broad oversight and investigatory powers under Article I of the Constitution, criminal investigations and prosecutions have generally been viewed as a core executive function and a responsibility of the executive branch. Historically, however, because of the potential conflicts of interest that may arise when the executive branch investigates itself (e.g., the Watergate investigation), there have been calls for an independently led inquiry to determine whether officials have violated criminal law. In response, Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have used both statutory and regulatory mechanisms to establish a process for such inquiries. These responses have attempted, in different ways, to balance the competing goals of independence and accountability with respect to inquiries of executive branch officials. Under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Congress authorized the appointment of “special prosecutors,” who later were known as “independent counsels.” Under this statutory scheme, the Attorney General could request that a specially appointed three-judge panel appoint an outside individual to investigate and prosecute alleged violations of criminal law. These individuals were vested with “full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers of the Department of Justice” with respect to matters within their jurisdiction.
  • ABSTRACT POLITICAL (IN)DISCRETION: HILLARY CLINTON's RESPONSE to the LEWINSKY SCANDAL by Kelsey Snyder Through an Examination

    ABSTRACT POLITICAL (IN)DISCRETION: HILLARY CLINTON's RESPONSE to the LEWINSKY SCANDAL by Kelsey Snyder Through an Examination

    ABSTRACT POLITICAL (IN)DISCRETION: HILLARY CLINTON’S RESPONSE TO THE LEWINSKY SCANDAL by Kelsey Snyder Through an examination of gender, politics, and media during the time of the Lewinsky scandal, this project shows that conversations about the first lady shifted throughout 1998. Just after the allegations were made public, the press and American people fought against the forthright position that Hillary took; the expectations of traditional first ladies they had known before were not met. After facing backlash via the press, the first lady receded to more acceptably defined notions of her actions, based largely in late 20th century conservative definitions of appropriate gender roles. By the end of 1998, consideration of a run for the Senate and increased public support for her more traditional image provided a compromise for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s public image. Having finally met the expectations of the nation, the press spoke less of the first lady in comparison to family values and almost exclusively by means of her political abilities. POLITICAL (IN)DISCRETION: HILLARY CLINTON’S RESPONSE TO THE LEWINSKY SCANDAL A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Miami University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Department of History by Kelsey Snyder Miami University Oxford, Ohio 2015 Advisor __________________________________________ Kimberly Hamlin Reader ___________________________________________ Marguerite Shaffer Reader ___________________________________________ Monica Schneider TABLE OF CONTENTS
  • Table of Contents

    Table of Contents

    TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................2 I. THE GOP INVESTIGATION ADVANCED RUSSIA’S ELECTION INTERFERENCE EFFORTS IN SUPPORT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP ..................................................................5 A. Putin and the Kremlin Support the GOP’s Ukraine Conspiracy Theories .......................6 B. GOP Allegations Originate From Sources Closely Tied to Kremlin and Promoting Russian Interests .....................................................................................................................9 1. GOP Investigation is Outcome of Derkach’s Election Interference Efforts .................9 2. Star Witness Telizhenko Has Close Ties to Derkach and Causes National Security Concerns ........................................................................................................................... 12 3. GOP Chairmen Repeatedly Cite Discredited Reporter’s Opinion Columns as Findings of Fact ............................................................................................................................... 16 4. Derkach Ally Giuliani Provided Biden Dirt to GOP Sources.................................... 19 C. Republicans Admit Purpose of Investigation is to Attack Vice President Biden’s Candidacy for President ........................................................................................................ 20 D. No GOP Interest In Hunter Biden Allegations Until Impeachment and 2020 Presidential
  • U.S. House Governor & Cabinet Florida Senate 4 Year Term Florida

    U.S. House Governor & Cabinet Florida Senate 4 Year Term Florida

    President & Vice President Governor & Cabinet Clerk of Courts 4 Year Term 4 Year Term Bob Germaine 590 South Commerce Avenue, Rm. A243 Donald J. Trump & Mike Pence GOVERNOR Rick Scott (850) 717-9418 Sebring, Florida 33870 The White House (863) 402-6565 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR www.hcclerk.org Washington, D.C. 20500 Carlos Lopez-Cantera (850) 488-7146 (202) 456-1414 Sheriff ATTORNEY GENERAL Pam Bondi (850) 414-3300 Paul Blackman U.S. Senate 400 South Eucalyptus Street 6 Year Term CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Jimmy Patronis (850) 413-2850 Sebring, Florida 33870 (863) 402-7211 Marco Rubio COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE www.highlandssheriff.org 284 Russell Senate Office Building Adam Putnam (850) 617-7700 Washington, DC 20510 Property Appraiser (202) 224-3041 The Capitol ♦ Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 ♦ www.flgov.com C. Raymond McIntyre, C.F.A. 201 South Orange Avenue, Suite 350 560 South Commerce Avenue, Rm. B138 Orlando, FL 32801 Sebring, Florida 33870 (407) 254-2573 or (866) 630-7106 Florida Senate 4 Year Term (863) 402-6659 rubio.senate.gov www.flsenate.gov www.hcpao.org Bill Nelson Denise Grimsley District 26 716 Hart Senate Office Building Tax Collector 413 Senate Office Building, 404 South Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1100 Washington, DC 20510 (850) 487-5026 Eric T. Zwayer (202) 224-5274 540 South Commerce Avenue, Rm. A101 295 East Interlake Boulevard, Lake Placid, Florida 33852 Sebring, Florida 33870 225 East Robinson Street, Suite 410 (863) 465-2626 (863) 402-6685 Orlando, Florida 32801 www.hctaxcollector.com (407) 872-7161 or (888) 671-4091 billnelson.senate.gov Supervisor of Elections Florida House 2 Year Term Penny Ogg U.S.
  • A Uses and Gratifications Perspective of the Relationships Among Consumption of Government-Conspiracy-Theory-Oriented Media Fare

    A Uses and Gratifications Perspective of the Relationships Among Consumption of Government-Conspiracy-Theory-Oriented Media Fare

    A Uses and Gratifications Perspective of the Relationships among Consumption of Government-Conspiracy-Theory-Oriented Media Fare, Trust in Government, and Political Participation A dissertation submitted to the College of Communication and Information of Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Communication Studies by Rekha Sharma August, 2017 Dissertation written by Rekha Sharma B.S., Kent State University, 2002 M.A., Kent State University, 2004 M.S., Kent State University, 2004 Ph.D., Kent State University, 2017 Approved by ________________________________ Paul M. Haridakis, Ph.D., Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee ________________________________ Danielle S. Coombs, Ph.D., Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee ________________________________ Janet R. Meyer, Ph.D., Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee ________________________________ James D. Ponder, Ph.D., Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Accepted by _________________________________ Elizabeth Graham, Ph.D., Director, School of Communication Studies _________________________________ Amy Reynolds, Ph.D., Dean, College of Communication and Information ii Table of Contents Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................