# 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:** 109
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2161 "2019-10-08T17:50:20Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > File a civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoena? Try to understand this: If it doesn’t take away his money or effect him physically he just doesn’t give a flying fuck. File that lawsuit-he won’t show up and you can’t make him. Demand to see documents-he won’t hand them over and you can’t make him. Demand his cronies appear-he won’t let them and you can’t force them. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2162 "2019-10-08T17:57:02Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > 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? The Supreme Court has the power to expedite cases when they feel that timeliness requires it. They can essentially say “This case needs our decision within a short time period in order for the decision to matter so we’re bypassing the normal route through the appeals system.” ---
**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, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2163 "2019-10-08T17:59:39Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The Supreme Court has the power to expedite cases when they feel that timeliness requires it. They can essentially say “This case needs our decision within a short time period in order for the decision to matter so we’re bypassing the normal route through the appeals system.” Thanks for the explanation. Doesn’t the White House defying House subpeonas during an impeachment inquiry merit that kind of intervention? ---
**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, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2164 "2019-10-08T18:07:36Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > Thanks for the explanation. Doesn’t the White House defying House subpeonas during an impeachment inquiry merit that kind of intervention? One would think they would. Perhaps they need to be formally asked. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2165 "2019-10-08T18:07:42Z")
“The one text message that I saw… I don’t even know most of these ambassadors. I didn’t even know their names. But the text message, the text message that I saw, from Ambassador Sondland, who is highly respected, was, there’s no quid pro quo. He said that.” [Trump, four days ago.](https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/10/04/trump-texts-denies-quid-pro-quo-sot-ath-vpx.cnn) It is now coming out that Sondland was on the phone with Trump just before sending that text message. Trump wrote one bogus press release on Air Force One, did he dictate that text to Sondland? Shit, I wouldn’t testify today either if I was as crooked as Sondland. I’d be getting a lawyer. > **[Sondland was in 'frequent contact' with Trump, called him before 'no quid pro...](https://www.msnbc.com/velshi-ruhle/watch/sundland-was-in-frequent-contact-with-trump-called-him-before-no-quid-pro-quo-text-70859333924)** > > Former Special Envoy Kurt Volker, E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland and diplomat Bill Taylor, used the encrypted messaging app WhatsApp in addition to regular text messages to communicate about Ukraine, according to two Congressional sources and... ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2166 "2019-10-08T18:08:47Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Try to understand this: If it doesn’t take away his money or effect him physically he just doesn’t give a flying fuck. File that lawsuit-he won’t show up and you can’t make him. Demand to see documents-he won’t hand them over and you can’t make him. Demand his cronies appear-he won’t let them and you can’t force them. I just reread this story from about a week before the 2016 election… [Donald Trump’s Companies Destroyed Emails in Defiance of Court Orders](https://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120.html) It’s worth a read because he is currently employing a number of shady tactics that have worked for him in the past. Here’s the concluding paragraph… > [@](#): > > This review of Trump’s many decades of abusing the judicial system, ignoring judges, disregarding rules, destroying documents and lying about it is not simply a sordid history lesson. Rather, it helps explain his behavior since he declared his candidacy. He promised to turn over his tax returns and his health records—just as he promised to comply with document discovery requirements in so many lawsuits—then reneged. As a result, he has left a sparse evidentiary trail that can be used to assess his wealth, his qualifications for the presidency or even his fitness. Should voters choose him to be the next U.S. president, he will enter the Oval Office as a mystery, a man who has repeatedly flouted the rules. He has solemnly told the country to trust him while refusing to produce any records to prove whether he speaks the truth or has utter contempt for it. ---
**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, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2167 "2019-10-08T18:13:24Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > 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? IANAL but I assume that went on the ultra fast track since it was actually an election decision. This is probably not deemed as much of an emergency. To me it needs timelier resolution but I’m a nobody! > [@bobot](#): > > Schiff has issued a sternly worded tweet about today’s obstruction. > [Senator Adam Schiff on X: "Trump prevented a key witness from testifying today. Ambassador Sondland participated in conversations and texts about whether a White House meeting and military aid were conditioned on Ukraine’s willingness to help Trump politically. America deserves answers, not obstruction. https://t.co/uDE2rPZnMO" / X](https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1181620150946148353?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Enews%7Ctwgr%5Etweet) > > [Senator Adam Schiff on X: "Trump prevented a key witness from testifying today. Ambassador Sondland participated in conversations and texts about whether a White House meeting and military aid were conditioned on Ukraine’s willingness to help Trump politically. America deserves answers, not obstruction. https://t.co/uDE2rPZnMO" / X](https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1181620150946148353/video/1) > OK man, so what are you going to DO about it?? Seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2168 "2019-10-08T18:24:43Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > You said nothing about the most important part of what I just wrote. …“important” is subjective. > [@](#): > > I was and am interested in why \*specifically \* some people think Trump is being blackmailed. I was and am interested in pointing out to you that you didn’t understand what the word “evidence” meant, and to point out that despite your assertion that no evidence was posted, evidence actually was posted. > [@](#): > > Someone posting a link and saying, literally “this”, is not an answer. Incorrect. > [@](#): > > There is a long precedent, obviously, of people being asked to defend what they link to here and in Great Debates. That precedent applies when the link that is requested is directly applicable to the OP. You yourself acknowledge that it really wasn’t, so much so you created a new thread to address it. > [@](#): > > “Debate” being the key word. No one wanted to do that here. Fine. That’s why I started a specific thread on the matter. Exactly. ---
**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, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2169 "2019-10-08T18:38:43Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > Thanks for the explanation. Doesn’t the White House defying House subpeonas during an impeachment inquiry merit that kind of intervention? I have a sneaking suspicion that such a lawsuit would be dismissed as a political question. This contradicts my earlier support for a lawsuit, but as I read more about how the Supreme Court has handled congressional-executive disputes in the past, the more I feel that such a suit will be dismissed. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2170 "2019-10-08T19:01:52Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > One would think they would. Perhaps they need to be formally asked. Is it even judicable? I would think it is a political question solved by contempt of Congress. ---
**Author:** ![gytalf2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ac91a4/32.png) [@gytalf2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gytalf2000)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2171 "2019-10-08T19:05:14Z")
> [@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. > > From the Bloomberg article: Excellent news! ---
**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, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2172 "2019-10-08T19:07:05Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I have a sneaking suspicion that such a lawsuit would be dismissed as a political question. This contradicts my earlier support for a lawsuit, but as I read more about how the Supreme Court has handled congressional-executive disputes in the past, the more I feel that such a suit will be dismissed. > > ~Max This isn’t a policy dispute. If the SCOTUS won’t intervene when one branch openly defies the 100% legal and proper procedures of another, how can a rogue executive ever be held accountable? ---
**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, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2173 "2019-10-08T19:09:15Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Is it even judicable? I would think it is a political question solved by contempt of Congress. Contempt of Congress, great. Then what? Are there consequences, or will it just “look bad” on Trump’s next report card? ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2174 "2019-10-08T19:23:39Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > Contempt of Congress, great. Then what? Are there consequences, or will it just “look bad” on Trump’s next report card? My (probably flawed) understanding is that Congress could seek criminal enforcement if they find that someone has ignored their legally-filed requests and subpoenas, through the Department of Justice (so, yes, in theory, there can and should be consequences). However, given that the DoJ is run by AG William Barr, who has shown absolutely no inclination to do anything even remotely against the wishes of Trump, I would imagine that any requests from Congress to the DoJ to enforce this would be met with a yawn, at best. ---
**Author:** ![Elusive](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/2bfe46/32.png) [@Elusive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elusive)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2175 "2019-10-08T19:30:10Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > My (probably flawed) understanding is that Congress could seek criminal enforcement if they find that someone has ignored their legally-filed requests and subpoenas, through the Department of Justice (so, yes, in theory, there can and should be consequences). However, given that the DoJ is run by AG William Barr, who has shown absolutely no inclination to do anything even remotely against the wishes of Trump, I would imagine that any requests from Congress to the DoJ to enforce this would be met with a yawn, at best. What, if anything, can be done about Barr? What recourse is there if our DOJ has turned against us? ---
**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, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2176 "2019-10-08T19:32:37Z")
> [@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. I’ll be surprised if SCOTUS takes it up. They generally don’t get involved in cases where the law is well settled, as it is in this case. There are just no real issues for them to decide. MAGA Hats may not understand it, but the Constitution makes crystal clear in Article 1 that Congress has powers of oversight over the Executive Branch. Trump’s arguments in opposition have zero basis. Unless SCOTUS is prepared to just literally shit all over the Constitution, they have no reason to elevate this case. You are absolutely right about the slow crawls through the courts. No one up until this “president” has weaponized our institutions as he has been willing to do. He politicizes _everything_. No doubt you’ve noticed his practice of defining any ruling adverse to his interests as being done by “Democrats!” Courts don’t rule on the basis of their political views. At least, they’re not supposed to. Impartiality is their highest ethical duty. But this asshole has no problem calling this into question from every possible angle in a bid to save his own worthless skin. He doesn’t care how much damage he does to our institutions by politicizing them and politicizing judicial process. He also weaponizes the deliberative (usually slow) process of the courts as much as he can. Some of the courts have recognized this tactic and have expedited their rulings in an effort to counter it. Still, it is slow. Trump and his henchmen count on it. Trump is 100% the most dangerous thing that has ever happened to our country. ---
**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, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2177 "2019-10-08T19:34:36Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Is it even judicable? I would think it is a political question solved by contempt of Congress. The Supremes told Nixon he had to turn over the tapes. If they can order that a president produce physical evidence why could they not order a president to allow material witnesses? ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2178 "2019-10-08T19:34:49Z")
Man, if Lincoln was alive he’d be rolling in his grave. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2179 "2019-10-08T19:40:21Z")
[Contempt of Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress) > [@](#): > > Inherent contempt > > Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment, imprisonment for coercion, or release from the contempt citation). ---
**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, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2180 "2019-10-08T19:40:34Z")
> [@Elusive](#): > > What, if anything, can be done about Barr? What recourse is there if our DOJ has turned against us? From what I can gather from the last couple of hours of this thread, it goes like this: House: Here’s a subpoena. White House: Fuck off. House: We’re asking DOJ to enforce the subpoena. DOJ: Nah. (_licks Trump’s asshole one more time_) House: We’ll take it to the SCOTUS. SCOTUS: We don’t intervene in interbranch issues. White House: The witch hunt is over! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=108) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=110)