# The Trump Impeachment Inquiry **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 24, 2019, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771 "2019-09-24T20:23:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 108
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2141 "2019-10-08T16:02:17Z")
Support for impeachment continues to rise, including among independents and Republicans, according to Nate Silver’s tracker: > > > Micah Cohen @micahcohen > Note that these numbers are for actual impeachment, not the impeachment inquiry. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2142 "2019-10-08T16:04:15Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > I have no idea what the process is, but I say get this in front of the SCOTUS asap. It’s the only authority that can effectively say, “Look, you bozos, it doesn’t matter what you think of the motives behind these subpeonas – they’re legally binding and you have to comply with them. If you don’t like it, don’t lose the House majority. Elections have consequences.” > > If they defy the SCOTUS then, yes, the Constitution is basically toilet paper. I don’t doubt that they would defy the Supreme Court, but damn it let’s make them do it. Where are the motions in court to make them testify? ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2143 "2019-10-08T16:05:00Z")
Nate Silver, tracking impeachment, tweeted: > [@](#): > > And we’re definitely seeing gains among independents and even Republicans, not just Democrats. > > Democrats: 71.6% pre Ukraine -\> 80.0% now (+8.4) > Indies: 33.9% pre Ukraine -\> 43.4% now (+9.5) > Republicans: 9.7% pre Ukraine -\> 15.4% now (+5.7) > ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2144 "2019-10-08T16:17:28Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Nate Silver, tracking impeachment, tweeted: > > [https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1181597285458890754?s=20](https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1181597285458890754?s=20) That +5.7 among Republicans is a shocker to me. That’s encouraging. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2145 "2019-10-08T16:19:46Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#): > > I’ve started to think that there is no way the Senate will vote to convict, but if public sentiment gets strongly\* behind impeachment and Trump continues to be more unhinged than usual, he’ll be removed using the 25th Amendment process. I don’t think that’s going to happen. Removal under the 25th Amendment is _more difficult_ than removal under the Article I impeachment process. The 25th Amendment requires both a majority of the Vice President and cabinet/other-body-provided-by-law and a “two-thirds vote of both Houses” (U.S. Const. art. XXV, § 4). Impeachment only requires a majority in the House of Representatives and “the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present” in the Senate. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2146 "2019-10-08T16:35:42Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > I have no idea what the process is, but I say get this in front of the SCOTUS asap. It’s the only authority that can effectively say, “Look, you bozos, it doesn’t matter what you think of the motives behind these subpeonas – they’re legally binding and you have to comply with them. If you don’t like it, don’t lose the House majority. Elections have consequences.” > > If they defy the SCOTUS then, yes, the Constitution is basically toilet paper. The House committees started the process long ago. There are numerous cases making their way through the appeals process. The appeals process just takes time, and that’s what the Trump crowd has been playing for. I compiled a list of articles in my [Post #1276](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=21890075#post21890075) that gives you an idea of where some of these cases are in the pipeline. One of them, the Mazars case, was ruled on yesterday and further appealed. It was a [glorious ruling yesterday](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-07/trump-loses-court-fight-to-keep-tax-records-secret-from-n-y-k1gfd80t) that Trump can’t stop his accountants, Mazars, from turning over his tax returns in response to a grand jury subpoena. (Bloomberg) The judge’s ruling is scathing in its criticism of Trump’s efforts to defy the rule of law. Even though this ruling is briefly stayed, the appeals court will take up the matter on an expedited basis and is expected to rule within 3 weeks. It’s unlikely the SCOTUS will hear it, so that will be the end of the tax records obstruction efforts – at least so far as the courts are concerned. From the Bloomberg article: > [@](#): > > The ruling means that Trump is closer to losing control of his tax filings and other financial records after years of defying a modern presidential norm of disclosing them to the public. > > U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero rejected Trump’s request for an injunction to block a grand jury subpoena for Trump’s personal and business records, ruling that the case should have been filed in state court rather than federal court. But he also ruled against the president’s constitutional claims, calling his argument for immunity from investigation “virtually limitless.” > > Trump asserted broad claims of presidential immunity from criminal investigation, extending to his company and business associates as well. But the judge found the assertion overly broad and dismissed Trump’s argument, saying it “would constitute an overreach of executive power.” ---
**Author:** ![MulderMuffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldermuffin/32/2862_2.png) [@MulderMuffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MulderMuffin)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2147 "2019-10-08T16:50:35Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > Trump earlier today Even for him this seems over the top. > > “My great and unmatched wisdom”? > > I think he is deliberately throwing stuff like this out and is working with his co-conspirators to try to establish a narrative where anything he says, no matter the subject, no matter to whom, no matter if documented, and no matter when, can be waved away and dismissed as ‘that’s just the way he talks. You’ve seen it yourself. It’s meaningless.’ I think it’s a slightly different ploy. There’s been so much criticism of the Republicans just following the party line, that they will agree with whatever outrageous behavior the president gets up to, no matter what. Republicans have come out vociferously calling the president out on his bad decision in regards to Syria. Now Trump can point to them and say, see, they disagree with me when I do something wrong. They didn’t disagree with my conduct in the Ukraine matter. Therefore it couldn’t have possibly been wrong. ---
**Author:** ![MulderMuffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldermuffin/32/2862_2.png) [@MulderMuffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MulderMuffin)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2148 "2019-10-08T16:53:28Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > Anyone know the ostensible reason for the WH refusing to allow Sondland to testify? Jim Jordan said: > [@](#): > > We understand the reason why the State Department decided not to have Ambassador Sondland appear today. It’s based on the unfair and partisan process that Mr. Shiff has been running. You think about what the democrats are trying to do: impeach the President of the United States thirteen months prior to an election based on an anonymous whistleblower with no first-hand knowledge who has a bias against the president, and the guy running the process, Chairman Shiff, didn’t even tell us that he had met with the whistleblower prior to the whistleblower filing the complaint. … The democrats are trying to impeach the president, that’s why. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2149 "2019-10-08T16:57:31Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I don’t doubt that they would defy the Supreme Court, but damn it let’s make them do it. Where are the motions in court to make them testify? And if they defy the Supreme Court, what then? Who is going to make Trump follow the Supreme Court orders? I expect Trump would just make up some insulting nicknames for the members of the court and tweet about how they should be impeached. Is Ginsberg going to personally go to the Whitehouse and kick Trump in the nards? ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2150 "2019-10-08T16:57:43Z")
> [@MulderMuffin](#): > > I think it’s a slightly different ploy. There’s been so much criticism of the Republicans just following the party line, that they will agree with whatever outrageous behavior the president gets up to, no matter what. Republicans have come out vociferously calling the president out on his bad decision in regards to Syria. Now Trump can point to them and say, see, they disagree with me when I do something wrong. They didn’t disagree with my conduct in the Ukraine matter. Therefore it couldn’t have possibly been wrong. I think that when trinp does this doubling down loudly and in public he is trying to normalize the thing he did that is being talked about, as if he has always done it, and so it can’t be part of the legal problems that he has. It’s a kind of manic reparations. I don’t think he is in control of it. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2151 "2019-10-08T16:59:18Z")
> [@MulderMuffin](#): > > Jim Jordan said: > > The democrats are trying to impeach the president, that’s why. Yeah, and they’re pulling the “one year to go” bullshit again, just like with Garland. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2152 "2019-10-08T17:01:30Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Is Ginsberg going to personally go to the Whitehouse and kick Trump in the nards? I rather doubt her eyesight is quite that good… ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2153 "2019-10-08T17:10:43Z")
[https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/read-senate-intel-concludes-russia-intervened-in-2016-to-boost-trump](https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/read-senate-intel-concludes-russia-intervened-in-2016-to-boost-trump) Senate Intelligence Committee releases report that concludes Russia intervened in 2016 to aid Trump. Which is not a surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2154 "2019-10-08T17:21:58Z")
> [@MulderMuffin](#): > > I think it’s a slightly different ploy. There’s been so much criticism of the Republicans just following the party line, that they will agree with whatever outrageous behavior the president gets up to, no matter what. Republicans have come out vociferously calling the president out on his bad decision in regards to Syria. Now Trump can point to them and say, see, they disagree with me when I do something wrong. They didn’t disagree with my conduct in the Ukraine matter. Therefore it couldn’t have possibly been wrong. Absolutely! As you say, it’s them demonstrating that, ‘yes, there are checks and balances, and yes, the system is working no matter what the socialists/leftists/baby-killers/Democrats claim’. But it’s also a tactic to preemptively dismiss anything that might be found or has been found that demonstrates Trump’s criminal and unAmerican behaviour. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2155 "2019-10-08T17:22:16Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Why? What can Congress do if they don’t? What _will_ Congress do if they don’t? > Admonish them? > Shake a finger at them? > Throw more paperwork at them? File a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoena? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2156 "2019-10-08T17:24:07Z")
> [@MulderMuffin](#): > > Jim Jordan said: Jim Jordan is one of the most corrupt, self-serving, brown-nosing lying assholes that I have ever seen elected to any political body. He’s sort of a one-man icon for everything wrong with the Republican party, particularly the complete disregard for truth or fairness and the tendency of its more militant members to live in a fictitious alternate reality that they themselves have fabricated. Their sole constituency, without which they couldn’t exist, is the ignorant voter, on whom they prey like vultures. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2157 "2019-10-08T17:26:04Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I rather doubt her eyesight is quite that good… In her defense, no one’s is. ---
**Author:** ![Skypist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skypist/32/169_2.png) [@Skypist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skypist)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2158 "2019-10-08T17:31:14Z")
The New York tax return case isn’t expected to go to SCOTUS? I’m really surprised. I figured trump could keep the case going until he is out of office and then it would be dropped, or else it would make it to SCOTUS, where the ruling would likely be in his favor since he has it stuffed with toadies. It just feels like these slow crawls through the courts will either never end or be decided in trump’s favor months down the line since the SCOTUS is not the only place he’s got packed full of toadies. Now this latest refusal to testify feels like simply one more case going on the heap. Argh. ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2159 "2019-10-08T17:40:27Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > The House committees started the process long ago. There are numerous cases making their way through the appeals process. The appeals process just takes time, and that’s what the Trump crowd has been playing for. I compiled a list of articles in my [Post #1276](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=21890075#post21890075) that gives you an idea of where some of these cases are in the pipeline. One of them, the Mazars case, was ruled on yesterday and further appealed. > > It was a [glorious ruling yesterday](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-07/trump-loses-court-fight-to-keep-tax-records-secret-from-n-y-k1gfd80t) that Trump can’t stop his accountants, Mazars, from turning over his tax returns in response to a grand jury subpoena. (Bloomberg) The judge’s ruling is scathing in its criticism of Trump’s efforts to defy the rule of law. Even though this ruling is briefly stayed, the appeals court will take up the matter on an expedited basis and is expected to rule within 3 weeks. It’s unlikely the SCOTUS will hear it, so that will be the end of the tax records obstruction efforts – at least so far as the courts are concerned. > [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > File a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoena? > [@Skypist](#): > > The New York tax return case isn’t expected to go to SCOTUS? I’m really surprised. I figured trump could keep the case going until he is out of office and then it would be dropped, or else it would make it to SCOTUS, where the ruling would likely be in his favor since he has it stuffed with toadies. > > It just feels like these slow crawls through the courts will either never end or be decided in trump’s favor months down the line since the SCOTUS is not the only place he’s got packed full of toadies. Now this latest refusal to testify feels like simply one more case going on the heap. Argh. Please fight my ignorance. In the aftermath of the 2000 election, _Bush v Gore_ somehow got in front of the SCOTUS and was ruled on within days. (Apologies if I have this wrong – my memory is hazy.) How did that happen, and why can’t it happen now? How does _Pelosi v Trump_ skip the preliminaries and get right to the main event? ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2160 "2019-10-08T17:47:17Z")
Schiff has issued a sternly worded tweet about today’s obstruction. > > OK man, so what are you going to DO about it?? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=107) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=109)