The Pingry School - Vital Signs - April 2020

VITAL

SIGNS

Pingry Students Taking the Pulse of the World

The Hong Kong Protests, Brexit, Lesser-known Democratic Candidates, The Impeachment, Antitrust Investigations, The College Admissions Scandal

Vital Signs

March 2020

In This Issue...

Brian Li 1 Interviews with Hong Kongers on the Recent Crisis

Andrew Wong

4

The Hong Kong Protests

Madeline Skapper

7

Brexit: Influence on the Domestic and Global Economy

Zara Jacob

8

Why the Lesser-Known Democratic Candidates have a Slim Shot at the Primary

Brooke Pan

10

The Impeachment Inquiry

Aneesh Karuppur

12

Antitrust Investigations into Big Tech Companies

Meghan Durkin

14

“Operation Varisty Blues” Further Exposes the Corruption of College Admissions

Vital Signs

Pingry’s Journal of Issues and Opinion Vol. 26, NO. 1 The Pingry School, Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 Spring 2020

Editor-in-Chief

Brian Li

Associate Editors

Martha Lewand Madeline Skapper

Layout Editors Brooke Pan Eve Gilbert Faculty Advisor

Mr. Matt Honohan

The opinions expressed in Vital Signs are not necessarily those of the Pingry School, its students, faculty, administration, or trustees. Articles, letters, and cartoons represent the view of their authors. Unsigned letters will not be published.

On the Cover:

“Protesters in Hong Kong” photo from Wikimedia Commons”

1

Interviews with Hong Kongers on the Recent Crisis

Graffiti on a crosswalk in Central

By Brian Li (VI)

This aims to provide local perspectives on the recent protests in Hong Kong, although the length of this essay unfortunately enjoys a full and rigorous explanation of the situation in Hong Kong. Narratives of propagandistic simplicity and ideological martyrdom fail to do the panoply of factors that have influenced the recent protests, public opinion, or the direction of Hong Kong any justice, but this begins an acknowledgment of the practical effects of the protests in Hong Kong, a narrative which the Western media has largely neglected.

Hong Kong, as the world knows it in 2019, is the fruit of a centuries-long process of societies in both willing and unwilling contact.

This is a process that is equal parts intriguing, unique, and tragic, although the average Hongkonger may be reluctant to acknowledge the third. Hong Kong, in the latter years of the 1800s, was a part of the moribund of the Qing Dynasty. Corruption coupled with mandarins who dithered about in nepotism and self-indulgence had eroded the power of a nation that, just a few centuries prior, had the whole of East Asia firmly within its sphere of influence.

The tragically underprepared Chinese were routed by the British in not one but two Opium Wars, and, of the many consequences levied against the Chinese, Hong Kong was ceded to the British. The New Territories and outlying islands would be ceded for 99 years, returning to China in 1997. Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, and Stonecutter’s Island would remain in British hands indefinitely. After lengthy negotiations, the entirety of Hong Kong was returned to the Chinese in 1997, provided that China grants Hong Kong retain a semi-autonomous status for 50 years. In essence, with the exception of foreign affairs and defense, the British-instituted political and economic insttutions would remain intact under a Chinese flag.

Initially, the changes were perhaps imperceptible. Red post boxes, for example,

were repainted green. The fact of the matter was, however, that the degree of autonomy promised in 1997 has not eroded significantly, although it could be argued that such was China’s intention since the start. The political structure of Hong Kong is structured such that it leans towards pro-Beijing interests. The Chief Executive, for example, is not elected by popular vote, but rather by a 1200-member Election Committee (tantamount to the Electoral College in the US). What is more, since 2014, all candidates must first be vetted as being loyal to Beijing. In late 2015, several proprietors of a pro-democracy bookstore went missing and mysteriously reappeared in the mainland. Based on the current trend, Hong Kong’s autonomy will continue to be eroded.

Nevertheless, Hong Kong bears the semblance of a fully functional democracy under most definitions, but China’s omnipresent influence means that it operates with clearly delineated restrictions.

Graffiti featuring a stylized protest slogan: “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times.”

March 2020

Hongkongers are not unaware of what could be arguably described as growing encroachment by Beijing. A series of widespread, violent protests in 2014, caused by anger over the indirect election of the Chief Executive, was a prelude to the larger, even more violent protests of 2019. Beijing made no concessions, and the only fruit was arguably a right-wing-to-far-right localist movement gaining traction in elections.

2019’s protests were fed by anger over the so-called “Extradition Bill,” which establishes a mechanism for transferring fugitives to other jurisdictions, including mainland China. This bill was issued in the aftermath of an Taiwanese murder suspect who could not be extradited back for trial. Nonetheless, fears that the law could be abused by Beijing to silence pro-democracy protesters led wide-spread protests. This fire, doused by the gasoline that is the larger mainland-Hong Kong cultural conflict, alleged instances of police brutality, as well as Chief Executive Carrie Lam and her administration’s tone-deafness, has led to five demands from student protesters:

1) That the government retract of the Extradition Bill (retract

ed).

2) That the government retract of the “riot” characterization

(later amended to “some protesters rioted;” protesters remain

unsatisfied).

3) That the government release and exonerate all arrested and convicted protesters.

4) That an independent police brutality commission be established (the existing commission’s independence is questionable).

5) That Carrie Lam resign.

In December, Vital Signs traveled to Hong Kong and interviewed several locals in Hong Kong regarding the recent political situation. This visit took place after the worst of the unrest during the summer, although an isolated violent incident did occur during the visit and shortly afterwards before resuming once again in January 2020.

During this visit, two questions were asked to each local: (1) what are opinions about the recent unrest with respect to the Extradition Bill? and (2) how have these protests affected your life? These inter-

Bilingual graffiti was found in areas frequented by expats and foreigners.

Vital Signs views paint a picture of a largely disaffected if not disengaged public, although the extent of these protests and a recent election throw this simplistic depiction into doubt.

Beijing has attempted to characterize the protesters as being “paid-off” by foreign governments, and there are theories that Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen has funded these protests as a manipulation tactic leading to her January 2020 landslide re-election. One of those interviewed provide a quote of about HK$3000-8000 (US$390-1030), based on what he has heard as a taxi driver who has driven fleeing protesters from police.

Indeed, the protesters have adopted ingenious ways of evading police with masks, communication, and protest methods, which shrouds the overall mechanism by which these protests have been coordinated with an air of unclarity. Despite their scale, more violent protests are often executed with guerrilla-style unpredictability and hit-and-run unexpectedness. The consequences of this are widespread disruptions to the city’s infrastructure. During and after protests, mass transit service is often discontinued, and those involved in the service and tourism industries have been affected by cancellations.

Although evidence of the protests are quickly removed, some signs of unrest remain. Mainland-based institutions, such as branches of the Bank of China, are often covered in white tarpaulins. These ostensible “renovations” are meant to repair glass smashed during protests.

Stenciled slogans are found on walls and tunnels, and in areas with large numbers of foreigners, some graffiti is in English. Graffiti on tramway stops have been smeared out by the tramway authority, leaving splotches of watered-down black. Multiple WiFi networks named for pro-democracy slogans were found. Although residents may sleep soundly, they awake to find the morning news dominated by last night’s violence.

There is a pervasive element of fear and division in Hong Kong. Interviews were often turned down, sometimes forcefully or fearfully (a newsstand owner quickly ended an interview when the interviewer picked up a pro-government newspaper). Indeed, the number of neutral interviewees can likely be attributable to “shy Tory” effects from both sides of the conflict. Many of those who agreed to be interviewed only did so only after some thought, and political division is exacerbated by generational and socioeconomic differences. Within families, apolitical or conservative parents have fallen out with their pro-democracy children.

There is, however, mass dissatisfaction in Hong Kong. The 2019 district council elections in Hong Kong, which allow for direct voting, led to the first-ever pro-democracy landslide. While pro-Beijing parties dominated all district councils prior to 2019, only one retained a pro-Beijing majority afterwards. Analysts saw this election as a referendum on Hong Kong’s protests. However, the district councils’ powers are fundamentally limited—democratic garbage collection is arguably a token act in a larger polity that is devoid of true democracy. The Legislative Council and Chief Executive, the true arbiters of political power in Hong Kong, will continue to be dominated by pro-Beijing interests.

A common refrain was “stability and prosperity,” as Hong Kong has arguably lacked both since the protests began. Hong Kong is now officially in a recession, although some protesters have recently expressed a desire to sacrifice Hong Kong’s economic wellbeing for their ideological interests. This represents a trend: protests in Hong Kong have been increasingly influenced by ideological convictions, and this could alternatively lead to escalations or an eventual decline by disaffected and atrophied protesters. This prospect has not sat well with some locals, considering modern Hong Kong’s mercantile conception and identity as well as the political pragmatism that is common in East Asia. Thus, one could conclude that the neutrality encountered in those interviewed could stem from an equal dissatisfaction towards the pro-Beijing and pro-democracy camps, ergo the situation as a whole. The district council election was neither a vindication nor an indictment of the protesters, but rather a reflection of tiredness with endless unrest. There is a hope, at least from those interviewed, that the protesters were ideological enough to frighten the pro-Beijing establishment but immature enough to scuttle the cause after a few victories. We have yet to see whether or not this hope will hold.

2

Vital Signs

March 2020

Interviews Middle-aged office worker, interviewed at Hong Kong International Airport (New Territories) Interviewed in English At the very beginning, it was a good idea, but the original ideas of the protest has changed.

Right now, there are still a little bit of people who are aiming for riots instead of protests.

However, there are still a large amount of people on the streets fighting for freedom, which is good. However, they become too comfortable with the rioters.

Retiree, interviewed at the General Post Office (Central)

Young banker, interviewed on Pedder Street (Central)

Interviewed in Cantonese

Interviewed in Mandarin

I don’t have much of an opinion. People my age, we just don’t want any fuss. The protests have affected all aspects of our lives. We just want stability. I don’t dare go out at night. I tend to stay away from places with a lot of people. The IFC in Kowloon has not even put up their Christmas lights this year.

I grew up in Zhuhai, which means I grew up under the mainland Chinese polity. In my college years, I had an “angry man” phase.

I had a certain idealism and dissatisfaction towards everything. I, too, was incensed by the 1989 protests. But, your mind changes as facts become more apparent. My understanding of these things are not necessarily clear. I think that what they [the protesters] are doing is very good, and a lot of people are quiet, especially my friends in the mainland. When people are not talking politics, that is a good sign. The society is progressing, and so the idea that “there is no freedom of speech” is problematic. A natural progression to development is much better than agitation. The CCP on the mainland will, sooner or later, reform and change.

Middle-aged food hawker, interviewed on Lockhart Street (Wan Chai)

Young lawyer, interviewed at Hong Kong International Airport (New Territories)

Interviewed in Cantonese

Interviewed in English

There are people opposed, and there are people in favor, but if you ask me, I have no opinion. Those posters [referring to several pro-democracy posters pasted in front of his shop] were from some young people who had passed by. We just want to live peaceably and prosper economically. If we disagree politically in the process, that’s fine.

I have other priorities in life than politics. I am a Christian, so there is my church life as well. When you have these priorities with me, ideology is not necessarily important. My office had to shut down for a week; practical inconveniences you can call it. There are cancelled events because people were scared.

Just because it looks quiet at 5 PM, you don’t know what will happen at 8 PM, there’s no taxis, there’s no MTR. I have heard of friends who are stranded in Tsim Sha Tsui or Mong Kok. There are people around me who are emotionally affected by it. They’ve had fallouts with the people in their lives, mostly parents, who are not necessarily ideological, but their children are definitely on the yellow side. There are a lot of conversations, like this, just within small groups, what does the Bible say about this, but there is a correct approach to thinking about it.

Young architect, interviewed at Hong Kong International Airport (New Territories) Interviewed in Cantonese The biggest problem is the violence, particularly the work of the police in curtailing the violence. The government needs to establish a policy to constructively establish peace. There has been no response from the government.

Middle-aged clerk, interviewed at Hong Kong International Airport (New Territories)

3

Interviewed in Cantonese I am a member of the DAB (the largest pro-Beijing party) *pulls out party membership card.* Both sides are problematic. They can protest, but there cannot be violence. I’ve heard that protesters have been given money to go on the streets, HK$3000-8000 (US$3901030) for one “job.” Both sides have been paying people off. The government gives more money, obviously.

SOURCES:

Interviewed in Cantonese The original intentions were good; democracy is always good. But its effects on our lives has been negative. Then again, nobody trusts the Chinese government. We are afraid of losing our autonomy; it has been declining since 1997. We could, however, do without the violence. But there has been violence. HK government is not responding to the “bomb,” but they are planting another one. This is heavily affecting the tourism industry. There has been a lot of cancellations at hotels. It will not be resolved soon. It’s a deadlock.

The district council elections is the truest reflection of discontent and distrust towards the government. But the voices of the district councils are limited.

Elderly taxi driver, interviewed at Hong Kong International Airport (New Territories)

Central (Hong Kong Island) by day, the morning after several latenight clashes

The Asia Pacific Journal (2 Nov 2014): https://apjjf.org/2014/12/44/Ho-fungHung/4207.html South China Morning Post (22 Jan 2020): https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/ article/3047125/hong-kong-protests-will-inspire-world-even-if-they-fail Public Opinion and Political Development Studies, Chinese Univ. of Hong Kong (22 Oct 2014): https://www.webcitation. org/6VtHssHnm?url=http://www.com.cuhk. edu.hk/ccpos/images/news/20141022-eng.pdf The New York Times (24 Nov 2019): https:// www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/24/ world/asia/hong-kong-election-results.html National Geographic (7 Aug 2019): https:// www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/topics/ reference/hong-kong-history-explain-relationship-china/ Photos provided by Brian Li

Vital Signs

March 2020

The Hong Kong Protests June Peaceful March in Causeway Bay (Photo Credit The Sun)

By Andrew Wong (IV)

As Hong Kong approached its 22nd year of returning to China in June 2019, the territory experienced the worst political crisis in its history. Millions of protesters swarmed the streets of Hong Kong, demanding the Hong Kong government to withdraw an extradition bill which would allow the government to extradite suspected criminals to mainland China. These protests soon morphed into a wider movement for increased freedoms and democracy. In the first two weeks of the protests, Hong Kong protesters came up with a list of “Five Demands” for the movement, refusing to back down until the government agreed to accept all of them, not one less.

The Five Demands are (1) full withdrawal of the extradition bill, (2) an independent inquiry into police brutality, (3) a retraction of the classification of protesters as “rioters,” (4) amnesty for all arrested protesters, and (5) universal suffrage for the Legislative Council and Chief Executive.

According to the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, after the handover to China in 1997, Hong Kong would be administered under the “One Country, Two Systems” framework. People in Hong Kong would continue their way of life and have “a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative, and independent judiciary power” for 50 years without change until 2047. However, after the handover in 1997, it has become evident China does not intend to wait until 2047 to absorb Hong Kong. Not even halfway into the 50 years, it became evident the ‘Two Systems” framework was slowly being eroded and was becoming “One Country, One System.”

Under the pretext of seeking justice for the victim’s family on a murder case committed by a Hong Kong citizen in Taiwan, Chief Executive Carrie Lam proposed an amendment bill to the existing extradition law that would provide a legal path for the Hong Kong government to send suspected criminals on Hong Kong soil, regardless of any nationality, to regions where Hong Kong had no extradition agreement, including Taiwan, Macau, and mainland China.

The fact that the bill had widened the extradition jurisdiction to include mainland China infuriated many Hongkongers and made them feel that their judicial rights had been betrayed. The Chinese judiciary system, aside from having a 99% conviction rate, has no transparency, and is directly controlled by the Communist Party itself. Local business communities, human rights groups, foreign embassies, and local lawyers all expressed major concerns that the bill would put many sectors in Hong Kong, including the independent judiciary, at unpredictable risk.

Despite these concerns and public worries, Carrie Lam refused to withdraw the bill, pushing forward with its passage in the Legislative Council to become law.

This extradition bill would be the last straw for many Hongkongers after years of ever-increasing Chinese encroachment. On June 9th, a million Hongkongers, about 1/7th of Hong Kong’s population, peacefully marched in the streets, demanding Carrie Lam withdraw the bill. She did not listen.

The following day, on June 10th, the US State Department spokeswoman, Morgan Ortagus, held a news briefing expressing the US concern about the Extradition Bill that it could damage Hong Kong’s business environment and subject [US] citizens residing in or visiting Hong Kong to China’s unpredictable and often biased judicial system.

She added, “any amendments to the fugitive offenders ordinance should be pursued with great care and in full consultation with a broad range of local and international stakeholders.”

Yet, Carrie Lam, not concerned with the massive protest on June 9th, or the concerns of foreign governments, immediately announced the planned June 12th meeting in the Legislative Council (LegCo) to pass the bill would continue as scheduled.

On June 12th, protesters executed a surprise blockade at the LegCo to prevent the meeting from taking place. Although successful in stopping the meeting, these protesters were later met with riot police, who attempted to disperse them away from the LegCo. Police fired tear gas, sponge grenades, and rubber bullets at protesters, arresting many and injuring hundreds more. Police later deemed the 6/12 protests as ‘riots’, making it so anyone caught in connection to these events would face imprisonment of up to 10 years.

Reintroduction of HKHRDA

On June 13th, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA) reintroduced the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act (HKHRDA). The bill ensures that Hong Kong’s special treatment by the US Government can continue, as defined in the 1992 US-Hong Kong Policy Act.

The HKHRDA requires the Secretary of State to recertify Hong Kong’s special treatment annually to make sure Hong Kong has a sufficient level of autonomy that is guaranteed under the terms of the Joint Declaration. The bill also allows sanctions under the Magnitsky Act of those who suppress human rights in Hong Kong. It also bars the sales of tear gas and other crowd-controlling non-lethal weapons to Hong Kong.

The reintroduction of HKHRDA was the first substantial action by any foreign government to support the protests in Hong Kong.

Throughout the summer, more and more senators and congressmen from both parties sponsored the bill. Meanwhile, the rest of the world was not far behind the US in standing behind the Hong Kong protesters.

4

Vital Signs

March 2020

A Lennon wall in Tai Po (Credit HKFP)

Other Countries’ Response

In Britain, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt published a statement on June 12th urging the Hong Kong government to listen to the concerns of its people and the international community to reflect on these controversial measures. He emphasized the uphold of the principles of ‘One Country Two Systems’ which was vital to Hong Kong’s future success.

The European Parliament of the EU, on July 17th, published a resolution “stressing that the EU shared many of the concerns raised by citizens of Hong Kong regarding the proposed extradition reforms” while condemning “the constant and increasing interference

by China in Hong Kong’s internal affairs.”

The EU went on to call for its member states and the international community to restrain the exports of the “technologies used to violate basic rights” to the Chinese and Hong Kong governments.

Protests Continue

Despite this international pressure and millions of Hongkongers marching in the streets as the summer began, Carrie Lam hid away from the public and ignored the protesters demands. She made no concessions and refused to withdraw the bill. Instead, to resolve this political crisis, the only measure she used was to push the Hong Kong police force to crack down even harder on protesters. Weekends in industrial dye laced with pepper spray.

Events such as the 7/21 Yuen Long MTR station mob attacks, when no police

could be reached for help for over 30 minutes during attacks on civilians by large gangs of mafia members in the station, and the 8/31 Prince Edward MTR station attacks when police indiscriminately attacked protesters and civilians on trains, have completely destroyed the Hong Kong police reputation that once was regarded as “Asia’s Finest.”

Finally, on September 4th, just as school started in Hong Kong, Carrie Lam announced the withdrawal of the extradition bill.

It was too little, too late. In the 13 weeks since protests began, police brutality had simply caused too much bloodshed, arrests, injuries, and even deaths.

For anyone hoping that the start of a new school year would mark the end of protests, they would be sorely disappointed.

The anti-extradition bill movement has evolved into a pro-democracy movement that spread into every corner of the city. The movement remains leaderless, and is organized mainly on online platforms such as Telegram and LIHKG, a Reddit-like forum. There have been peaceful protests via art and music in parks and piers, human chains of students in front of schools, and office workers gathering to sing in malls.

There even have been violent vandalism of subway stations and hurling of Molotov cocktails in street protests committed by a small group of radical protesters, though these radical acts are not condoned by most Hongkongers.

October 1st marked the 70th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China. Pompous parades of the PLA military equipment and troops in Beijing were juxtaposed with scenes of running street battles across Hong Kong.

Amidst these violent clashes, an 18-year-old high school junior was shot in the chest at point-blank range -- the first use of live rounds on protesters.

HKHRDA passed

On November 8th, Alex Chow Tse Lok, a 21-year-old student studying computer science at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology died in the hospital after falling from a two-story parking lot during a police operation to clear out protesters five days earlier. Chow’s death was the first official death directly linked with police action after months of protests. Protests across the

Protesters make a path for an ambulance to pass through (Photo credit WSJ)

5

city exploded. What first began as a call for an investigation into Chow’s death soon led to horrific police sieges on two university campuses, the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU). These campuses turned into battlefields for two long and agonizing weeks, as police fired tear gas, rubber bullets, and even industrial blue dye to disperse students. As images of these terrible university sieges were beamed around the globe, politicians across the world were spurred into action.

On November 13th, 2019, Senators Jim Risch and Marco Rubio pushed to expedite the passage of the Hong Kong Human Rights & Democracy Act (HKHRDA) bill. The bill passed a unanimous voice vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee later that day and was sent to the Senate. By November 18th, the bill had garnered 50 co-sponsoring senators, guaranteeing its passage in the Senate. The next day on November 19th, the Senate unanimously passed the HKHRDA, one of the few pieces of legislation that passed the Senate with unanimous and complete bipartisan support in 2019.

Upon the passage of the bill, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “the Senate has sent a resounding message to the Chinese Communist Party and President Xi that the United States stands with the democratic protesters in Hong Kong… To the kids in Hong Kong, the students and the adults, we stand with you ...And freedom will prevail, and the Chinese system will either change or fail.”

The bill was immediately sent to the US House of Representatives, who passed the Senate’s version of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act with a 417 to 1 vote on November 20th. The bill was then sent to the President’s desk. On November 27, 2019, the day before Thanksgiving, President Donald Trump signed the HKHRDA into law.

A few days before the HKHRDA was signed into law, a local district council election took place on November 24th, 2019, an election which was widely seen as a referendum on Carrie Lam’s rule. Pro-democracy candidates won in a landslide victory, taking control of 17 out of 18 district councils in Hong Kong.

On top of this stunning victory, Hongkongers were ecstatic to hear the HKHRDA was signed into law on November 27th. Thousands of Hongkongers held mass rallies on Thanksgiving Day, November 28th. After 5 months of hard fighting, the people of Hong Kong finally began to see a little hope in their struggle, and the official backing of the United States.

In addition to the US, other nations also expressed support for Hongkongers amid the increasing violence in November. The European Commission on Foreign Affairs published a statement condemning the violence of police and protesters while demanding the Hong Kong government to uphold basic rights of “peaceful assembly and expression” and calling for an independent investigation into police brutality in Hong Kong. In December,

Vital Signs

March 2020 the Italian Chamber of Deputies unanimously passed a resolution supporting Hong Kong protesters and demanding the Hong Kong government launched an independent investigation into police brutality.

With the passage of the HKHRDA, as well as other pieces of legislation in other countries, these were signs that the world finally, after months of protests, was coming to stand with the Hong Kong people. The Hong Kong people were finally not alone.

Responses from Beijing

Since the start of protests in Hong Kong in June 2019, Chinese officials and media have branded the protests as a “color revolution” against the CPC (Communist Party of China) with interference from many “external forces” from Western countries. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has repeatedly stated that “Hong Kong is an integral part of China, and that [the Foreign Ministry] condemns all foreign interference,” accusing Western nations of supporting “separatist forces” without providing any evidence of foreign meddling.

Simultaneously, the Chinese government has even gone as far as to pressure foreign firms to keep silent about Hong Kong, as notably seen in high-profile cases as in the Blizzard and the NBA.

The signature of the HKHRDA into law in the US was not welcomed by the Beijing government, as its leaders and officials now could be subjected to American sanctions for their actions over Hong Kong. After the passage of the HKHRDA, China retaliated by banning US lawmakers who supported the bill, such as Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), from entering China, as well as ending all future port visits of US Navy vessels to Hong Kong.

It also responded with sanctions on several US-based human rights NGOs, such as the Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the National Endowment for Democracy.

The New Year

As our world enters a new decade, the people of Hong Kong are still in the streets with the same energy as they had seven months ago. On Jan. 1st 2020, 1 million Hongkongers came out on New Year’s Day to join a peaceful demonstration. It is a strong message to the world that the Hong Kong people would cont-

Protesters make a path for an ambulance to pass through (Photo credit WSJ)

A pastor puts a gas mask on a toddler after tear gas was fired nearby (Credit HKFP)

tinue to fight in this new decade.

Three days later on January 4th, in a move unexpected by many, Beijing changed the head of the Chinese Liaison Office in Hong Kong, the most senior Beijing official in Hong Kong, replacing Wang Zhiman with Luo Huining, a Communist Party official who had previously been Communist Party Secretary of Qinghai and Shanxi provinces. It was the first key government personnel change by China since the start of the Anti-Extradition Bill movement seven months ago in the city. Upon taking up his new position, Luo committed himself to “put Hong Kong back on the right track.”

In the Taiwanese presidential election on January 11th, the liberal democratic President Tsai Ing-Wen and her Democratic Progressive Party won a sweeping landslide. In her presidential campaign, Tsai warned that if she was not re-elected, it would be “Hong Kong today, Taiwan tomorrow.” Tsai campaigned as a candidate who would never let Taiwan fall into Beijing’s hands, which brought her and her Democratic Progressive Party a historic landslide victory, winning with more than 2.6 million votes over her opponent Han Kuo Yu from the Pro-Beijing Kuomintang Party.

The Future

As of this writing, it has been seven months since protests started in Hong Kong.

Over 7,000 protesters have been arrested, ages 11 to 83. Two protesters have died, and there have been several suicides. The people of Hong Kong know their movement for freedom and democracy is a David and Goliath fight - a small city facing one of the most powerful nations in the world. Regardless of these odds, Hongkongers today still refuse to give up. They know this is the last chance they have to defend the city their ancestors had worked so hard to build, to fight for their freedom and their future.

As a major financial hub linking together East and West, Hong Kong today has been called by various political commentators as “the new frontline of freedom.” If the protest in Hong Kong is silenced and suppressed, what will be the consequences for the rest of the world?

On February 4th, 2020, a bipartisan

panel of US lawmakers nominated the Hong Kong protesters for the Nobel Peace Prize. In the letter detailing the nomination, the lawmakers cited “the pro-democracy movement of Hong Kong has inspired the world as countless and often anonymous individuals risked their lives, their health, their jobs, and their education to support a better future for Hong Kong.” They further added, “They [Hong Kong protesters] have demonstrated civic courage, extraordinary leadership, and an unwavering commitment to a free and democratic Hong Kong that upholds the rule of law and fundamental human rights and freedom.” Whether the Hong Kong people will eventually succeed in their fight for freedom, their actions have already inspired the world and awakened the global community.

SOURCES: CNBC (13 Nov 2019): https://www.cnbc. com/2019/11/13/us-senators-push-for-vote-onhong-kong-rights-bill-as-violence-rises.html AP (2 Oct 2019): https://apnews. com/7b0f328f266f46c1a498a16a5ad03fbc CNN (1 Jan 2020): https://www.cnn. com/2020/01/01/asia/hong-kong-new-year-protests-intl-hnk/index.html Reuters (4 Jan 2020): https://www.reuters.com/ article/uk-hongkong-protests-china-liaison/ china-replaces-head-of-hong-kong-liaison-office-amid-ongoing-protests-idUSKBN1Z30AD Financial Times (7 Jan 2020): https://www. ft.com/content/c95614f6-3063-11ea-9703-eea0cae3f0de The New York Times (2 Jul 2019): https:// www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/world/asia/ hong-kong-protest-explained.html Office of Sen. Marco Rubio (13 Jun 2019): https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index. cfm/2019/6/rubio-cardin-risch-menendez-reintroduce-hong-kong-human-rights-and-democracy-act Reuters (20 Dec 2019): https://www.reuters. com/article/hongkong-protests/hong-kong-protesters-denounce-police-raid-on-fund-raisingplatform-idUSL4N28U34K CNN (15 Oct 2019): https://www.cnn. com/2019/10/15/politics/hong-kong-housevote/index.html

6

March 2020

Vital Signs

Brexit: Influence on the Domestic and Global Economy

By Madeline Skapper (VI) “Brexit” has swept international news since its origins with the June 23, 2016 referendum where the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, of which it has been a member since 1973. After many extensions of the official exit date throughout the past few years, Boris Johnson, appointed prime minister in July 2019, has negotiated a deal for the United Kingdom to officially leave the European Union on January 31, 2020. The 2016 referendum revealed how the different parts of the United Kingdom felt on the issue and the impending independence of the U.K.: Britain voted 51.9% in favor and 48.1% against, Wales 52.5% in favor and 47.5% against, Scotland 38% in favor and 62% against, and Northern Ireland 44.2% in favor and 55.8% against. This decision has been met with controversy, by government officials, citizens, and the media alike, as the country looks to a future without the political and economic regulations of the European Union.

The impending uncertainty of Brexit has left much for Parliament to consider as Johnson has outlined in his Withdrawal Agreement Bill. Similar to the initial agreement negotiated by former British Prime Minister, Theresa May, the U.K. remains a part of the European Union during the transition period until the Brexit negotiations have been finalized. A main difference is that the U.K. would not be in a “customs union” with the EU—meaning there will be a customs and regulatory border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the Irish Sea. Additionally, the 3 million European nationals already living in the U.K. will continue to live and work in the country without work visas, and in reciprocation, the 1.3 million U.K. citizens living in the EU will continue to do the same. Under the Withdrawal Agreement, the U.K. will also have to pay a 33 billion pound “divorce bill” that will fulfill any remaining financial commitments to the EU before officially severing economic ties. In the midst of these negotiations, economic uncertainty remains high as businesses and the financial sector make decisions for their assets as the United Kingdom begins the shift to an independent entity free of the restraints of the European Union’s regulations.

Following the June 2016 referendum, many companies moved assets, businesses and offices out of the U.K. and into other EU countries. Firms have benefited from Britain’s membership in the European Union via “passporting,” which allowed companies licensed in one EU country to trade across borders with relative ease and few regulatory hassles. To continue selling to clients within the EU as they do now, British companies would have to establish subsidiaries within the EU and apply for a local licence. The EU is an expansive market of almost 22 million firms, so it will pose substantial strain on the financial sector if firms based out of the U.K. find it more difficult to offer clients these services.

Many banks have set up new offices elsewhere in the Eu-

7

ropean Union to safeguard their regional operations after Brexit and move substantial assets to satisfy EU regulators. Other firms are moving assets to protect clients against market volatility and sudden changes in regulation. Some of the most popular destinations for company relocation in the EU include Dublin, Luxembourg, Frankfurt, Paris, and Amsterdam. Statistics from Reuters cites “more than 300 financial firms in Britain have opened EU hubs to continue serving clients in the bloc after Brexit, around 7,000 positions would be relocated from London to the continent, and a further 2,400 jobs created and hired locally at the new EU hubs.” The financial sector in a precarious position can have negative consequences for the U.K. economy, as around 7% of total U.K. economic output is from financial services. Finance plays a critical part in determining the economic output of Brexit as the financial sector is a major recipient of foreign investment, supports around one million jobs, and a critical U.K. exporter.

The UK’s equity market has also been hit hard by the uncertainty of Brexit. The British stock market is shrinking faster than any other major venue globally, according to Citigroup Inc. three years after the initial referendum to leave the EU. Causes for this include depressed prices, low borrowing costs, fewer companies going public amid the uncertainty, and private equity funds and foreign buyers chasing the British acquisitions. According to data compiled by Bloomberg, “U.K. buybacks are up 9.7% to $45 billion over the past 12 months, the highest level for the period since June 2008.” A stock buyback occurs when a company repurchases shares of its own stock. Due to the economic uncertainty and market pessimism of Brexit, companies that initially issued shares to raise equity capital in search of expansion are now buying back shares to reduce the shared ownership as there is a lack of potential growth opportunities in sight.

Photo provided by Wikimedia

Vital Signs

March 2020

Trade agreements are another point of contention as Great Britain rushes to confirm trade negotiations and replicate the EU’s trade deals. This is a vital aspect to Brexit negotiations for the U.K. as these agreements confirm that they will have the same tariff-free access to countries following the Brexit transition period, rather than paying extra taxes on goods under World Trade Organization terms—which is responsible for regulating international trade between nations. Previously, EU regulations allowed the U.K. to only negotiate and sign deals with countries that had an existing EU agreement. After January 31, 2020, the U.K. will have a new independence to sign deals with countries not having EU agreements—like the United States. Due to the official severance of economic ties between the U.K. and EU, the U.K. will have to also negotiate their own deal with the EU to not be subject to tariffs from EU member countries. The U.K. has currently signed 20 of these “continuity deals” covering fifty countries or territories globally.

As the day for the official exit looms, the British and global economies have reacted to the impending uncertainty to businesses and markets. The 2016 referendum sparked an international movement of economic speculation as the U.K. rushes to negotiate trade agreements and keep economic policy in order as the future without European Union supervision draws closer.

SOURCES: European Union (n.d.): https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries/member-countries/unitedkingdom_en The Balance (16 Dec 2019): https://www.thebalance.com/brexit-consequences-4062999 Reuters (19 Jan 2020): https://www.reuters. com/article/us-britain-eu-banks/a-thousand-eufinancial-firms-plan-to-open-uk-offices-afterbrexit-idUSKBN1ZJ00D BBC (9 Jan 2020): https://www.bbc.com/news/ uk-politics-51006375 Bloomberg (28 Jun 2019): https://www. bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/another-victim-of-brexit-world-s-fastest-shrinking-stock-market Independent (20 Nov 2017): https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/ analysis-and-features/brexit-passporting-rightseea-explained-what-does-it-mean-for-bankseconomy-pound-euro-a8065131.html Investopedia (4 May 2019): https://www. investopedia.com/ask/answers/042015/whywould-company-buyback-its-own-shares.asp BBC (6 Jan 2020): https://www.bbc.com/news/ uk-47213842 The Globalist (12 Mar 2019): https://www. theglobalist.com/brexit-an-overview-in-charts/ Photo Credits Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_brexit.svg

Why the lesser-known Democratic candidates have a slim shot at the primary Pete Buttigieg, having benefited from early successes in Iowa and New Hampshire, at a campaign event

By Zara Jacob (V)

Although most Democratic candidates agree on big picture ideas—protecting DACA, universal health care, common sense gun regulations—there remains a clear tier of candidates who have a shot at performing well in the primaries. With frontrunners ranging from moderate Joe Biden to democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, policy is evidently not the issue distinguishing top contenders. Rather the priority for voters seems to be a candidate’s ability to garner the support and momentum necessary to beat Trump, a quality otherwise known as electability.

Those who face the brunt of this new voting trend are candidates that lack recognition or are subject to the inherent sexism and racism of America. Even those who may have policies that resonate with a wider swath of voters or a more personable demeanor will likely be neglected in the name of electability.

The question that Democrats face in regards to electability is whether to capitalize on the enthusiasm for progressive candidates or to focus on the practicality of a moderate candidate.

The appeal of a moderate candidate would be to gain the support of voters who supported Trump, but would be willing to warm up to a Democrat cognizant of conservative values. Gov. Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island points to the Democratic gubernatorial victories in Kentucky and Louisiana as evidence that “Democrats could win those voters in 2020 with a “message of unity” and pragmatic promises on issues like health care and student debt”

This notion of a moderate platform being the best course of action has propelled Joe Biden to the top. Biden is banking on not only his well-established reputation in Washington, but the role as the sensible, moderate candidate who can reach across the aisle.

Senior vice president of Third Way, a center-left think tank, Lanae Erickson, synthesizes the onslaught of research discussing electability in the context of Joe Biden.

“Voters, she said, believe that Democrats must be united to defeat as formidable an adversary as Trump, and Biden — as a former vice president and senator with decades of experience — has the stature that they believe is necessary to coalesce the party. The logic, she said, is that “we know this person … He’s a known quantity who can unite. It’s the riskaverse way of thinking about things if you are worried that this [primary race] could get out of control.”

Though this promotion of Biden being this “risk-averse” candidate may lack the enthusiasm witnessed among young Warren or Sanders’ supporters, she expresses the truth of Biden’s resume and candidacy fitting a definition of electability important to Democratic voters.

Yet, if such is the case that a moderate platform translates to higher polling numbers, the dominance of Warren and Sanders over moderate candidates aside from Biden indicates another factor at play in the discussion of electability.

Second-tier and formerly second-tier candidates like Pete Buttiegeg, Amy Klobuchar, and the recent drop-out Kamala Harris, all characterize their policies as the bridge between moderates and progressives with the slogan of “pragmatic policies” paralleling those of Biden. Take healthcare, one of the most divisive issues among Democrats, most declared moderates have been wary of Bernie’s Medicare for All as being “ a proposal that would move too far, too quickly”; rather, showing a preference for a “Medicare for all who want it” plan, which would offer a public option as opp-

8

Vital Signs

March 2020 osed to eliminating all private insurance. Yet despite sharing similar stances to Biden, lesser-known moderates cannot gain the same traction primarily because of the perceived lack of electability.

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar announces her campaign

In fact, if comparing the debate performances of Biden, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg, Buttigieg and Klobuchar have held their ground in a space that Biden has consistently underperformed.

Regarding Klobuchar’s recent January debate performance, Iowa political commentator Laura Belin tweets: “Strong closing by @ amyklobuchar. ‘We need a candidate who is actually going to bring people with her.’ She’s won every race. Easy to hurl insults. Easy to draw ideological lines in the sand. What’s hard is the work of governing. If you’re tired of extremes, she’s for you.”

Finding the compromise between radical and moderate permeates throughout other candidates’ policy proposals proving that Biden is not in any way unique in his moderate platform; more aptly, he is unique for his credibility and reputability. Warren and Sanders share somewhat of a similar popularity to Biden in this aspect which serves as an explanation for why Buttigieg and Klobuchar are polling lower than them.

The flip side of “electable” candidates in the Democratic primary being able to gain supporters who are truly passionate about their vote. (Find some data or a quote talking about the level of enthusiasm among Bernie supporters maybe paralleling those of Trump). The policies that Warren and Sanders put forth draw a devoted following among the Democratic Party who seek Medicare for All and (some other issue that warren and Sanders share a progressive stance on).

Andrew Yang’s campaign inspires a similar spark among the youth. Though Yang lacks a firm moderate or progressive characterization of his policies, a surge of publicity has ensued with the introduction of the freedom dividend and his MATH (Make America Think Harder) slogan. There is even concern that he will pull votes from Sanders in New Hampshire because he attracts the same group of eager young voters that mobilized Bernie’s win in 2016 according to an NBC report. Yet for the same reason Buttigieg and Klobuchar struggle to compete with Biden, Yang simply cannot amass the type of recognition that Warren and Sanders have achieved despite the cultural phenomenon his candidacy has inspired.

Examining the amount of media attention each candidate is receiving demonstrates the inclination to push aside the second-tier candidates who seek to break into what seems to be the set top three: Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders. Polls conducted in both September and October by 538 indicate that Joe Biden, Elizabeth War-

Bernie Sanders marches with supporters at an event in Iowa

9

ren, and Bernie Sanders have consistently held the top three slots with Biden leading in October with 75% of cable TV clips the week of September 22 and 40% of cable TV clips the week of August 25th. Though, some of the lesser-known candidates have had spikes in media attention (Kamala Harris after her June debate performance), every single one has been as short-lived as the last; that was until Buttigieg became the front runner in the Iowa Caucus for more than a week.

Being from the Midwest, Buttigieg has a distinct advantage over other candidates because he is a household name that carries the same kind of credibility that Biden holds nationwide according to interviews done by the New York Times. Buttigieg’s campaign spokesperson even says: “Pete has spent a lot of time in these places. One of the things we’ve found is the more people know Pete, the more they like him, so it’s continuing to introduce him to folks.”

Voters in Iowa are comfortable with the notion that Buttigieg is a viable contender against Trump because they know him and have faith in him; “Ask almost any Iowa Democrat, and they’ll tell you: Pete Buttigieg is smart” (New York Times). The rest of the nation, however, does not share this same trust, possibly explaining why his nationwide polling numbers have remained stagnant. Buttigieg’s surge in Iowa is not because of a spectacular debate performance or overwhelming policy support; it comes down to the recognition. Buttigieg in Iowa and Biden in the nation--both reveal the dramatic influence of electability that is currently driving the Democratic race.

Given the growing importance of political stature, discussing policy can be left behind; policy seems to be second when it comes to voting for the 2020 election at least according to the current polling numbers. There is a certain integrity when it comes to supporting a candidate not merely for the sake of party, but for the policies you hope to see enacted. Yet, there is also a selfless aspect to putting aside whatever progressive or moderate or radical views for the greater good of the party.

For years, voters have been able to maintain a delicate balance through reason and compromise, but the inception of Trump’s political career forces voters to make a tough, but ultimately inevitable choice for the 2020 Democratic nominee, and the polls clearly indicate which choice most are leaning towards. 2020 is not going to be the year for lesser-known Democratic candidates.

SOURCES: CNN (19 Aug 2019): https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/19/politics/2020election-turnout-fox-news-poll/index.html The New York Times (5 Nov 2019): https://www.nytimes. com/2019/11/05/opinion/Democrats-trump-2020.html CNN (4 Nov 2019): https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/04/politics/2020-election-turnout-preview/index.html The New York Times (14 Feb 2020): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/elections/Democratic-polls.html The Atlantic (13 Jun 2019): https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ archive/2019/06/2020-election-voter-turnout-could-be-record-breaking/591607/ The New York Times (22 Aug 2019): https://www.nytimes. com/2019/08/22/us/politics/joe-biden-trump-2020.html The New York Times (3 Dec 2019): https://www.nytimes. com/2019/12/03/upshot/public-option-medicare-for-all.html The New York Times (31 Jul 2019): https://www.washingtonpost.com/ politics/here-are-the-Democrats-three-key-disputes-about-medicare-forall/2019/07/31/97c18196-b278-11e9-8f6c-7828e68cb15f_story.html The New York Times (18 Nov 2019): https://www.nytimes. com/2019/11/18/us/politics/Democrats-2020-moderates.html The New York Times (4 Nov 2019): https://www.nytimes. com/2019/11/04/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-iowa.htm The New York Times (15 Jan 2020): https://www.nytimes. com/2020/01/15/us/politics/who-won-Democratic-debate.html The New York Times (17 Nov 2019): https://www.nytimes. com/2019/11/17/us/politics/louisiana-governor-trump.html Photos from Wikimedia Commons

Vital Signs

March 2020

The Impeachment Inquiry: Everyone’s heard of it, but what does it really mean for the future of our nation?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces the results of the impeachment trial

By Brooke Pan (V)

Perhaps the political topic that’s on everyone’s minds is the impeachment inquiry. President Donald Trump’s impeachment has swept the nation, finding its way into everyone’s households, whether being discussed over family dinner or played on the TV in the background.

And as debates of constitutionality and partisanship consume the majority of Congress’ discussions, citizens are left to watch the show unfold.

In any case, the nature of this historic event is rooted deep within the American polity.

Why does this seemingly ordinary Trump scandal stand out above the rest? The bottom line here is that this event shapes the future of the United States and sets a precedent for future impeachments, no matter what results from the process. The impeachment process, in its complexity, can be broken down into two major steps: the House vote and the Senate vote. The House’s trial determines whether the president is impeached, while the Senate’s trial determines whether the president is removed from office. So although this event is the fourth case in which an impeachment inquiry has been initiated against the President, it could be the first instance in which a President is removed from office.

On September 24th, Nancy Pelosi made the announcement opening the House’s impeachment process. This announcement came shortly after news emerged of a whistleblower complaint concerning a private phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskiy. A quid-pro-quo involving military aid to Ukraine as well as an investigation into Hunter Biden’s activities in Ukraine was suspecting, thus providing Pelosi with—in her and her fellow Democrats’ opinion—enough cause to launch an impeachment inquiry. This entire process, of course, comes with its many caveats, including the slim chances of an actual removal from office, given the Senate’s Republican majority, as well as the complications that would follow if Trump were to be removed from office, such as Vice President Mike Pence stepping into the presidency.

To briefly summarize the steps which lead to impeachment and possible removal from office, the procedure first begins with an impeachment inquiry declared by a member of Congress. This announcement launches a series of investigations into the background of the grounds for impeachment, often entailing a number of hearings and trials conducted by the House’s Judiciary Committee. Following this inquiry, the committee uses their findings to draft articles of impeachment, which, if approved by the entire committee (requiring a simple majority), moves the process into a vote encompassing the entirety of the House.

There, every representative would vote on each article of impeachment, deciding whether or not to pass each one. If none of the articles succeed in obtaining the necessary amount of votes to pass (a simple majority), the process is terminated. Though, if any of the articles receive the

simple majority, the president is impeached, and the process moves to the Senate for trial. There, they make the final call on whether to remove the president from office (requiring a two–thirds majority on any article) or acquit the president (obtaining less than a two–thirds majority on all articles).

While this process seems relatively simple in theory, much information must be collected before any vote takes place. To ensure a strong and coherent case for impeachment, the party initiating the impeachment must generate as much background information and evidence as possible to solidify their story. As a result, this process can become quite lengthy in the time frame between the impeachment inquiry and the first House vote.

It is also important to keep in mind the partisan majority ruling each legislative branch. Currently, the House has a Democratic majority with 233 Democrats and 197 Republicans, while the Senate has a Republican majority of 45 Democrats to 53 Republicans. Therefore, while the articles of impeachment passed through the House with ease, Trump will likely be acquitted in the Senate due to its majority of Trumpster Republicans. So while it is easy to get caught up in the impeachment’s early momentum, it is worth noting that the nature of Trump’s impeachment stems from precedents established by past impeachment proceedings, in which partisan loyalties ultimately prevented a majority of them from taking place.

House Democrats Unveil 2 Articles Of Impeachment Against Trump

10

Vital Signs

March 2020

Looking back at the allegations both these presidents faced, the evidence for each of them draws similar parallels. For instance, the primary evidence supporting Clinton’s infidelity was the notorious blue dress. The dress was Lewinsky’s; however, it contained traces of Clinton’s DNA which ultimately disproved Clinton’s claim that he had never been in the same room as Lewinsky. For Trump’s case, it is the infamous phone call that pulled the trigger for the House’s initiation of the impeachment process. In this conversation, Trump indicates that he would offer military aid to Zelenskiy in exchange for investigations into the 2016 election and the Biden family. Moreover, in both of these cases, the primary debate on impeachment rested upon whether or not the president’s actions could be deemed as “high crimes and misdemeanors,” as specified by the Constitution.

It is within this specific argument that partisan divides can become most prevalent and judgments can become swayed toward certain party allegiances. For instance, in 1998, Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina argued to impeach Clinton, declaring that “high crimes doesn’t even have to be a crime. It’s just when you start using your office and you’re acting in a way that hurts people.” Since then, Graham has become a vocal advocate against Trump’s impeachment, arguing that his impeachment is “fundamentally unfair.” This is not to say that impeachment proceedings are rigged by design to ensure party-line votes (bearing in mind that the framers never saw parties as being constructive to their vision). However, time and again, we have seen that in practice, impeachments are generally party-line affairs. So, the core question becomes how much evidence must the Democrats gather for Republicans to defect.

Calls for impeachment have taken place since Trump’s election; pictured here is an impeachment march in New York

Three former Presidents have faced impeachment: Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. While both Johnson and Clinton faced formal impeachment by Congress, they remained in office for the rest of their terms due to the Senate’s failure to meet the required votes to remove them from office (as will likely be Trump). As for Nixon, the House never voted to impeach him, as Nixon had resigned before giving the House the opportunity to do so.

During his second term, Clinton was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice, stemming from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed

by Paula Jones as well as from a testimony Clinton had previously given regarding his sexual relations with then-White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Under oath, Clinton stated that he had never engaged in any sexual relationship nor had he ever been in the same room with Lewinsky, which he later admitted to having been a lie. Thus, the House drafted Clinton’s grounds for impeachment to account for accusations of perjury and obstruction of justice. On December 19, 1998, Clinton was impeached by the House for both articles of impeachment, though was later acquitted by the Senate with a vote of 50 to 50. As a result, Clinton remained in office for the rest of his term.

Tickets to the 1999 impeachment trial of Bill Clinton

11

Pictured left to right: Ukrainian President Zelenskiy and US President Trump

SOURCES: The New York Times (17 Jan 2020): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/what-is-impeachment-process.html NPR (4 Dec 2019): https://www.npr.org/2019/12/04/784883518/a-lookat-the-parallels-between-the-clinton-and-trump-impeachment-processes CBS News (13 Nov 2019): https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-impeachment-inquiry-comparison-to-bill-clinton/ The Washington Post (6 Dec 2019): https://www.washingtonpost.com/ politics/2019/12/06/what-trump-actually-asked/ Wikipedia (3 Dec 2019): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment United States Senate: https://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Impeachment.htm The Skimm (Dec 2019): https://www.theskimm.com/news/guides/impeachment-history; https://www.theskimm.com/news/guides/trump-impeachment-inquiry-next-steps; https://www.theskimm.com/news/daily-skimm/2019-12-19 Aljazera: https://www.aljazeera.com/topics/events/190926061142695. html The Washington Post (29 Jan 2020): https://www.washingtonpost.com/ politics/2019/12/18/house-is-voting-impeach-trump-what-happens-next/?arc404=true ABC News (31 Jan 2020): https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/ news/video/senate-expected-vote-witnesses-today-impeachment-trial-68662200 Photos from Wikimedia Commons

March 2020

Vital Signs

Antitrust Investigations into Big Tech Companies Photo provided by Wikimedia

By Aneesh Karuppur (V)

If you follow the news in the technology industry, you might have heard the following statements at one point or another. They are common in a few ways - they criticize the purported monopolistic practices of large tech companies, they advocate for breaking up these companies or at least investigating them, and they were all said by prominent politicians from the left wing of the Democratic Party, namely Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) respectively.

It’s very easy to say that such views are extreme or only held by certain members of society, but society has been viewing major tech companies in a much harsher light recently. Consider Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal (where Facebook was found to have violated User Agreements and sold user data for targeted ads), Google Search’s bias concerns (which, as conservatives claim, favors Democratic viewpoints), and the question of political ads across various platforms. Given these concerns, there is a question of whether or not breaking up these companies (like Amazon, Facebook, Google) is justified. The answer is a bit more complex than one might believe.

First, we need to look away from partisan bills and proposals to the current antitrust law. The laws are expressly made to protect the consumer from price increases that are not caused by factors such as inflation or general market behaviors. Monopolies are particularly dangerous, since they can always use its market control to sell product at very low prices, forcing any smaller competitors out of the market. Once the competitors have been acquired or are out of business, the monopoly can raise the prices back to original levels. Anti-monopoly laws thus aim to encourage innovation and lower prices.

The first of these is perhaps the most famous - the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. This law prohibits price fixing and collusion across an industry. Essentially, if multiple companies selling competing products meet and conspire to raise praises of said products, they would be penalized. The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 prevents anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions. Essentially, a company that has a monopoly in a space could maintain that monopoly by continually buying out and absorbing the competition. This law would prevent any new innovations from instantly being acquired and hidden away to preserve the monopoly of an existing large company.

Now, let’s take a look at the current arguments regarding antitrust regulation. As aforementioned, there are three main companies that are currently being targeted by the “break up big tech” position: Facebook, Google, and Amazon. Each company has a main, consumer-facing service and subsidiary services that bundle with the main service.

Take Facebook, for example. The Facebook that most people

know is the social networking site. Facebook also owns Instagram and WhatsApp, two more social networking apps, Oculus (the virtual-reality headset maker) and recently launched Libra (its own cryptocurrency).

In order to “break up” Facebook, the company must exhibit monopolistic behaviors from a legal standpoint. Sen. Warren, who seems to have the only substantial and specific plan on big tech breakups, uses the following information in her justification: “Facebook has purchased potential competitors Instagram and WhatsApp,” and “in the words of Mark Zuckerberg — ‘more like a government than a traditional company.’” Sen. Warren’s main concern with Facebook is its careless handling of personal data, and that if it had not acquired Instagram and WhatsApp, its data- and user- protection (not to mention insulation from Russian interference) would be stronger. This reasoning has inadequate evidence.

Instagram has a much different age demographic and content presentation and WhatsApp is more of a chat service than a social network, so Sen. Warren has yet to prove with substantial evidence that Facebook is legally monopolistic.

First, Facebook is not price-fixing or conspiring with competitors to raise the price for the consumer. Facebook and its sites does not host more than 50% of the ad content on the internet. Facebook is not aggressively trying to bankrupt or intimidate its competitors- in fact, one could feasibly argue that Twitter, Snapchat, and Weibo are large competitors that have not been illegally damaged by Facebook’s practices.

Facebook only bundles somewhat anti-competitively with its ad service; but since there are other companies that do the same, it’s hard to call Facebook a monopoly. There are a host of other legal considerations: refusal to deal, price undercutting, below-cost pricing, etc. but none of them actually apply to Facebook. Does Facebook need to be broken up?

As of right now, Libra is not influential enough to change things, so if a President Warren decides to pick this battle, her justification would be rather weak.

Sen. Warren’s rhetoric continues with Amazon. She brings up more specific points: Amazon’s acquisition of Diapers.com through price-undercutting, Amazon Marketplace’s copying and price-undercutting of existing products, the buyouts of Whole Foods and Zappos, and Amazon’s e-commerce dominance. Amazon does exhibit some anti-competitive behaviors, especially with the Diapers.com acquisition. Amazon wanted to buy out Diapers.com as Amazon was launching its own diapers store; Diapers.com said no. Amazon then drove down the price of diapers so far that they lost money - according to the Slate article suggested by Sen. Warren - to the tune of $100 million over three months.

Diapers.com couldn’t feasibly lose money, and sold itself to Amazon.

This scenario is classic monopolistic behavior at first glance, but there

12

Vital Signs

March 2020 isn’t enough information to go after the entirety of Amazon.

As for Amazon Marketplace: Amazon has its own line of in-house products, Amazon Basics, that has been mimicking existing popular products and selling the copycats at cheaper prices. This might seem to be a good example of anti-competitive practices. But, Amazon is not violating any patents when doing so, which means that either the government or a legal challenger would have to prove that Amazon’s creation of cheaper products based on popular ones is illegal. This is much harder to prove - “market research” could sum these practices up pretty quickly. As for Whole Foods and Zappos, there are many other competing brands, so that argument needs to come down to a checklist of antitrust law violations - like Facebook, Amazon is skirting around the law and not outright violating it, making it difficult to compile such a checklist.

And finally, with regards to Amazon’s e-commerce advantage, about 50% of e-commerce runs through Amazon. A 50% share of the market is not monopolistic by any stretch - the Federal Trade Commission’s own website of the law explains that “Courts look at the firm’s market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.” As for Amazon Web Services? One area that the Warren plan completely ignores that has more potential than the rest of Amazon’s violations combined. AWS controls some 80% of the web hosting market share. This goes relatively unreported because the impact to the consumer is relatively small compared to something like Amazon. com. But AWS is one of Amazon’s highest earning divisions, and its market share is more than a little bit concerning.

Finally, on to Google. Google’s alleged practices are all centered around its advertising and Search services. Sen. Warren argues that Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick (a major ad service) and its behavior against Yelp, which it allegedly demoted in favor of Google’s restaurant reviews, is monopolistic. Google is very similar to Amazon’s case in a lot of ways. It has come under fire for replicating competing services - weather, the aforementioned restaurant reviews, maps, and more - and promoting those first in its Search results, thereby giving its own websites more traffic and so more direct ad revenue. There are plenty of stories of Google Search running competitors into the ground by demoting their ranking in the list of top search results. Google is also one of the most far-reaching tech giants - it controls Android, the Pixel line of phone and computer hardware, Google Docs and Drive, and even self-driving cars (Waymo). There is one concrete court ruling against Google for monopolistic practices, and it includes a $2.7 billion dollar fine. The European Union, after collating information on Google’s Search practices for years, successfully sued, but Google has appealed.

So, it is difficult to determine the final outcome and what it means for Google’s other businesses and other tech companies.

Photo provided by Wikimedia

Another important issue with all of this is consumer impact.

When consumers become dependent on monopolies, they become more susceptible to price gouging. But for a service like Google or Amazon, consumers are paying lower prices and saving more time. Since these companies are beneficial to the consumer, should they be broken up? The legal opinion is still out on that.

One important thing to note: political statements about monopolies must be taken with a grain of salt. Sen. Warren’s plan includes statements such as, “You’ll still be able to go on Google and search like you do today...Small businesses would have a fair shot to sell their products on Amazon without the fear of Amazon pushing them out of business...Tech entrepreneurs would have a fighting chance to compete against the tech giants.” These paragraphs argue that consumers won’t notice a thing if Google Search and Amazon’s store are broken up, but they will see more competing companies. While the latter part will probably be true, the first part is less likely. Google Search’s integration with Google Drive will likely disappear. Amazon’s integration across all of its services will likely disappear. A classic example of this is Apple: if the App Store is separated from iOS and macOS, apps will likely no longer run through Apple’s rigorous vetting process. The App Store might end up like Google’s Play Store, overrun with sketchy apps and bad data practices. iOS runs on the “walled garden” model, where consumers have access to a very polished and developed set of applications, but they cannot leave the system or get applications from other sources.

Consumers have found this acceptable. Just witness Apple’s, Google’s, Facebook’s, and Amazon’s dominances in their respective spaces.

Multiple State Attorneys General are currently running probes into the anti-competitive practices of these companies. But these will take a long time to complete, and there is no guarantee that they will find monopolistic behavior. Politicians and public opinion have picked a formidable enemy in big tech companies. But who comes out on top will be determined by a stringent and contentious reading of the law, not the political stunts or tweets that we see and hear today.

SOURCES:

Photo provided by Wikimedia

13

Federal Trade Commission (n.d.): https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws Investors (11 Oct 2018): https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/pentagons-cloud-computing-amazon/ Vox (19 March 2018): https://www.vox.com/2018/3/19/17139184/google-facebooks-share-digital-advertising-ad-market-could-decline-amazon-snapchat CNBC (13 July 2018): https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/amazon-totake-almost-50-percent-of-us-e-commerce-market-by-years-end.html The New York Times (20 Feb 2018): https://www.nytimes. com/2018/02/20/magazine/the-case-against-google.html Photos from Wikimedia Commons

Vital Signs

March 2020

“Operation Varsity Blues” Further Exposes the Corruption of College Admissions Pictured left to right: Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin

By Meghan Durkin (V)

Dubbed “Operation Varsity Blues,” the college admissions scandal that surfaced last March exposed schemes used by parents to get their children accepted to top U.S. universities. From cheating on standardized tests to false athletic recruiting, wealthy families spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to bribe their children’s way into college.

Now, as many players involved in the scandal have or will face trials, the question remains: what does this mean for the admissions process and the universities involved in the scandal? By revealing a deeply-rooted system of bribery, the scheme continues to call into question the fairness of admissions, as well as the lengths parents will go to get their children accepted.

At the center of the scandal lies William Singer, the owner of Edge College and Career Network and its nonprofit affiliate Key Worldwide Foundation. Singer’s company worked with students to guide them through the college process, whether it was by helping them write essays or preparing them for standardized tests. Dating back to 2011, Singer used his business as a tool to accept bribes from parents who looked to Singer to help their children’s chances of admission. Using these bribes, Singer used his connections to everyone from college coaches to teachers willing to help students cheat on standardized exams in order to increase an applicant’s odds of acceptance. Singer amassed over $25 million in bribes throughout the scheme and now faces charges of money laundering, racketeering, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Singer used various strategies to get students accepted, including having students recruited for sports they had never played in order to secure them athletic scholarships. This includes Lori Loughlin’s

Pictured: William Singer

daughter, Olivia Jade, who was admitted as a member of the crew team at the University of Southern California, even though she had never participated in the sport. Singer’s network consisted of numerous coaches from universities across the countries. More prominent ones included Rudy Meredith, the women’s soccer coach at Yale, and Jorge Salcedo, the men’s soccer coach at UCLA. Singer had the most collaborators at the University of South Carolina, including the water polo and soccer coaches, along with Donna Heinel, an athletic director at the university.

Another angle Singer used revolved around the SAT and ACT. To facilitate cheating on these standardized tests, Singer used local high school teachers and counselors, including Mark Riddell and Igor Dvorskiy. Riddell took the SAT and ACT tests in place of students, while Dvorskiy accepted bribes to open his testing center to Singer’s students so they could skew scores.

Media attention grew as a result of the big names involved in the scandal, including actresses Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman.

Huffman, known for appearance in Desperate Housewives, pleaded guilty after paying $15,000 to have her daughter’s answers changed on the SAT. She was ultimately sentenced to fourteen days in prison.

Loughlin, known for her role as Aunt Becky in Full House, is facing an upcoming trial, with the possibility of facing 40 years in prison, after both she and her husband, Mossimo Giannulli, pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit money laundering, mail fraud, and federal programs bribery. They are accused of paying $500,000 in bribes to have their daughters accepted as crew team recruits, even though they did not participate in crew.

Colleges involved in the scandal, including the University of Southern California, Stanford University, Wake Forest University, University of Texas at Austin, and Yale University, look to manage backlash from the scandal and retain their innocence in the cases. When “Operation Varsity Blues” first surfaced after the FBI received a tip from one of their suspects in a securities fraud case, many universities fired coaches involved, including Yale’s Rudy Meredith, who initially led investigators to Singer, Salcedo, and Heinel. In hopes of quelling the backlash, the universities released statements revealing plans to further investigate the situation.

The prevalence of illegal activity surrounding admissions reveals the growing importance and competitive nature of college admissions, especially at elite universities. Take, for example, the University of Southern California, which remains the epicenter of this scandal. With over 60,000 applicants a year and an acceptance rate of 11.4%, admissions have continually grown more competitive. Just one year ago, the

14

Vital Signs

March 2020

Emerson College students Vivi Bonomie and Mackenzie Thomas hold up signs for actress Lori Loughlin

acceptance rate was 13%, and about 2,000 fewer students applied. This trend suggests that as admissions have grown more selective, the desire to get ahead, regardless of consequence, has grown as well.

As this scandal furthers the concern regarding the corrupt nature of college admissions, universities, along with the College Board, look to avoid another scandal. In May, the College Board revealed a new “adversity score,” also known as an “Environmental Context Dashboard,” that they hoped to factor into the SAT. To determine the score, the College Board would use variables such as a student’s neighborhood and high school. Though, the College Board shifted this initial idea after receiving criticism, including the belief that these situational factors could not be simplified into one score. Now known as “Landscape,” the College Board plans to use a broader approach to contextualizing the outside factors that affect test scores. Landscape will provide colleges with information on the high school attended, an applicant’s score in relation to other students from the same high school, and the neighborhood the applicant lives in. The College Board hopes this information will provide colleges with a greater understanding of students through environmental context.

In the end, “Operation Varsity Blues” is simply the latest of a long list of unfair admission scandals. From coaches to teachers to Singer, who used his business as a front to orchestrate the scheme, it calls into question more than students and their parents. The scandal further presses the concern of a wide reaching exploitation of the system surrounding admissions. At the core of the scandal lies parents’ desires to send their kids to the most prestigious colleges, and their willingness to pay any amount necessary. Parents are able to use their money and influence to illegally gain their children admission to college, and take spots from more qualified students.

Ultimately, this scandal also reveals the difficulty of preventing these crimes; there are often easy ways for parents and students to use the system in their favor. The mutually beneficial relationship between parents, students, and college officials seems to boost the desire to gain acceptance illegally. Parents get their students into top universities, students get to go to these

15

universities, and people like Singer, and the coaches and SAT and ACT administrators they are connected to, get money in the process. They benefit at the detriment of other students, who don’t have these illegal resources. It sacrifices the integrity of U.S. universities and consistently favors wealth and influence over merit. As sentencing unfolds for remaining players, including Loughlin, universities, along with the College Board, look to fix the admissions process.

SOURCES:

New York Times (12 March 2019): https://www. nytimes.com/2019/03/12/us/college-admissions-cheating-scandal.html The New York Times (21 Oct 2019): https:// www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/us/college-admissions-scandal.html Insider (22 Jan 2020): https://www.insider.com/ college-admissions-cheating-scandal-full-listpeople-charged-2019-3 CNBC (11 Aug 2019): https://www.cnbc. com/2019/08/11/american-greed-inside-college-admissions-scandal.html The Washington Post (30 Oct 2019): https:// www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/10/30/ california-businessman-gets-two-months-prison-college-admissions-scandal/ Fox Business (27 Nov 2019): https://www. foxbusiness.com/money/full-house-lori-loughlinmock-trial-college-admissions-scandal The Boston Globe (10 Nov 2019): https://www. bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/11/10/saber-edge/ VQUod6h3w7qwSydHtHc5xL/story.html CNN (12 March 2019): https://www.cnn. com/2019/03/12/us/william-rick-singer-and-thekey-profile/index.html The New York Times (12 March 2019): https:// www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/us/william-singer-admissions-scandal.html Insider (12 March 2019): https://www.insider. com/college-admissions-scandal-school-responses-2019-3#university-of-california-los-angeles-3 CNN (14 March 2019): https://www.cnn. com/2019/03/14/us/college-admission-cheating-universities-react/index.html The New York Times (15 March 2019): https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/us/college-scams-admissions.html Petersons (29 Nov 2017): https://www.petersons.

com/blog/top-five-admissions-scandals-of-thelast-few-years/ Business Insider (13 March 2019): https://www. businessinsider.com/college-admissions-scandals-2019-3 Inside Higher Ed (21 May 2019): https://www. insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/05/21/actcomes-out-against-adversity-index CNN (4 Sept 2019): https://www.cnn. com/2019/09/04/us/california-usc-college-admissions/index.html Business Insider (14 March 2019): https://www. businessinsider.com/coaches-fired-college-admissions-scam-2019-3#william-ferguson-wakeforest-9 CBS News (16 May 2019): https://www.cbsnews. com/news/college-admissions-scandal-list-operation-varsity-blues-every-charge-plea-accusation-facing-parents-2019-05-16/ USA Today (12 April 2019): https://www. usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/04/12/ mark-riddell-test-taker-college-admissions-cheating-scandal-court/3445143002/ USA Today (2 Oct 2019): https://www. usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/02/ igor-dvorsiky-director-los-angles-private-schoolcenter-college-admissions-scandal-has-agreedplead/3839599002/ NBC News (13 May 2019): https://www. nbcnews.com/news/us-news/felicity-huffman-pleads-guilty-college-admissions-scandal-n1005056 NPR (9 April 2019): https://www.npr. org/2019/04/09/711466916/lori-loughlin-15others-indicted-on-new-charges-in-college-ad missions-scandal The New York Times (6 Aug 2009): https://www. nytimes.com/2009/08/07/education/07illinois. html The New York Times (12 Feb 2011): https:// www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/educaion/on-longisland-sat-cheating-was-hardly-a-secret.html The New York Times (12 Feb 2011): https:// www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/education/onlong-island-sat-cheating-was-hardly-a-secret.html US News and World Report (22 Sept 2016): https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/ articles/2016-09-22/how-competitive-is-college-admissions The Daily Trojan (28 March 2019): http://dailytrojan.com/2019/03/28/usc-fall-acceptance-ratedrops-to-11-percent-record-low/ USC (n.d): http://admission.usc.edu/wp-content/ uploads/Freshman-Profile-2019.pdf USC (Sept 2018): https://about.usc.edu/ files/2018/09/USC-Freshman-Profile-2018-2019. pdf Forbes (11 Sept 2019): https://www.forbes.com/ sites/christopherrim/2019/09/11/the-sat-adversityscore-is-still-happening-and-colleges-may-use-itagainst-low-income-students/#116698e32ff8 College Board (2019): https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/pdf/environmental-context-dashboard-faqs.pdf New York Times (27 Aug 2019): https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/us/sat-adversity-score-college-board.html New York Times (12 March 2019): https://www. nytimes.com/2019/03/12/us/william-singer-admissions-scandal.html

16

VITAL

SIGNS