THE
OCTAGON
Non-Profit Organization U.S. POSTAGE PAID Sacramento, CA Permit No. 1668 2636 Latham Drive, Sacramento, CA
VOL.43 NO.5 • Sacramento Country Day School • www.scdsoctagon.com • @scdsoctagon • February 4, 2020
TO BOOT OR NOT TO BOOT Senior David Situ, sophomore Lilah Shorey, senior Aaron Graves and junior Avinash Krishna participated in a roundtable on Jan. 15 to discuss the impeachment and trial of President Donald Trump. PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY LARKIN BARNARD-BAHN AND ELISE SOMMERHAUG
Trial talk: Roundtable discusses Trump impeachment articles, consequences
O
BY LARKIN BARNARD-BAHN
n Dec. 18, the U.S. House of Representatives passed two articles of impeachment, the first accusing President Donald Trump of abuse of power and the second of obstruction of Congress. Both articles are “related to his efforts to have Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy announce probes involving former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as a debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 election,” according to CNBC. The Senate impeachment trial, which will decide whether Trump will be removed from office, began on Jan. 16. In a Jan. 7 Octagon poll of 88 students, 31% said they strongly support removing Trump from office, 27% said they somewhat support it, 29% had no opinion, 7% somewhat disagree with it and 6% strongly disagree. To discuss the impeachment and trial, four students participated in a roundtable on Jan. 15: seniors David Situ and Aaron Graves, junior Avinash Krishna and sophomore Lilah Shorey. Q: Let’s start with the impeachment. What do you think about the articles, and do you think they warranted impeachment? Situ: There’s definitely a case to be made that they are real charges and are impeachable offenses. While I do think there’s some legitimacy to these charges, I don’t think that impeachment was the right choice right now. Considering that we’re so close to the election, I’m in the small camp that’s like, “Yes, these charges are real, but we should let the election really decide.” At this time, it’s not really going to solve the issue. Also, what if he gets reelected? Krishna: You could make the argument that impeachment is probably going to reelect Trump because it will support his narrative and fire up his base. But the argument the Democrats make is, “Impeachment is important, and we have to do it because it’s our moral duty to uphold the Constitution.” So it’s not really that they
INSIDE the ISSUE
think he’s actually going to get removed because he probably isn’t. They feel like they have to do it. Situ: That’s definitely a fair point, but if we’re looking more long term, I don’t think that impeaching him right now is the best choice. It’s going to upset his voting base, and it’s going to have some bad consequences later on if he does get impeached. Shorey: I feel like another reason (they impeached him) is to show his supporters, “Hey, look, he just got impeached for all this bad stuff he’s done,” but the problem is I don’t think his voter base is going to care about that. Situ: That’s why I don’t think this actually changes anybody’s mind, which is why I don’t agree with it. It’s highly unlikely that the Senate is actually going to (remove) him. Krishna: So is impeachment just about changing people’s minds? Situ: For me, that’s what it should be doing. If (the Senate) removes him, then that’s just going to create more backlash and more anger in the people who would support him. Krishna: For sure. The articles are really, really smart. The obstruction of justice is really, really smart because that’s really broad. (House Speaker Nancy) Pelosi deliberately delayed the trial — it’s all calculated. Even if it’s hard to do, the Democrats are playing it really well. He did a lot of other things that are impeachable, but they’re harder to prosecute, so Democrats are like, “Well, you know, here’s some options. They’re not necessarily as cut and dry, but they’re easier to pitch on, so we’re going to introduce these articles.” Graves: They just want to put something out there. The more articles they put in, the more of a witch hunt it looks like. I don’t think he has any real notable of-
SPORTS 5 All-around varsity athlete Aaron Graves jams the national anthem before the homecoming basketball and soccer games.
fenses in terms of those two articles, so I don’t think they warrant impeachment. There’s no real clear-cut evidence to support it from what I’ve seen. Presidents before him have done similar things. Krishna: That’s fair, using precedent. I think they warrant impeachment, but I can see why you disagree. Graves: Every president has had a screwup. Planning (to cut) and actually cutting aid are two very different things. We’re not letting the president threaten someone? Krishna: It’s coercion, though! Isn’t that different? You are a (less powerful) country, and you are basically caught in between two of the world’s biggest powers — Russia and the U.S. Graves: So if we did it against a slightly (more powerful) country, it wouldn’t be that bad? Krishna: What (powerful) country would need aid? They don’t depend on the U.S. for aid, so it doesn’t matter. It wouldn’t be coercive enough. But with Ukraine, that aid package of $130 million — that’s a lot for that country that’s suffering from the Cold War even now. And now that $130 million is being cut off just because, “Oh I want to investigate a political rival.” Graves: Think about it from the average Southern American’s perspective: I’m not a fan of giving aid to any (foreign country) because there are people here in need, so if the president says, “I’m not going to do this,” one, there’s no substance to it, and two, I don’t really mind. So in the eyes of the people, they don’t really care. I don’t think threatening to take away someone’s aid is an impeachable and possibly convictable offense. Q: Do you think the assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani was related to the impeachment?
CENTERPOINT 6-7 The best way to a person’s heart is through their stomach — so look here to find the best restaurants to treat your Valentine.
TRIAL TALK page 3 FEATURE 9 Follow music teacher Maria Hoyos’ journey from her high school in Colombia to her first American concert in Chicago to SCDS.
Mock Trial team wins first round of county competition BY DAVID SITU The Mock Trial team beat Jesuit High School 492–388 on Jan. 22 at the Gordon D. Schaber Sacramento County Courthouse in the first round of the county competition. This year’s case covers the murder trial of Bailey Matsumoto, the founder of a self-driving vehicle start-up who has been charged with the first-degree murder of Bailey’s spouse, Taylor. After the death of the couple’s son, Taylor became a staunch critic of autonomous vehicles. While the defense argues that Taylor’s death was simply an accidental, alcohol-related drowning, the prosecution believes Bailey killed Taylor to prevent Taylor from campaigning against the company. The pretrial aspect of the case revolves around the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. A key piece of evidence that incriminates Bailey — the details of the murder in a movie manuscript found in his office — was potentially unlawfully obtained. While the detective was given permission to search Bailey’s house and garage, the detective obtained this evidence by entering a building unattached to the house. Though the defense argues that no consent was given to enter the office, the prosecution asserts that permission was given to search the entire property — which includes the office. This year’s team captains are seniors Spencer Scott, Anu Krishnan and Héloïse Schep. Before the official Mock Trial season began, the team was invited to the NorCal Mock Trial Invitational, an annual two-day tournament at Menlo School in Atherton. Country
MOCK TRIAL page 2
FEATURE 11 Discover the dangers of fast fashion, how some students combat it and what you can do to be more sustainable in your clothing.