# 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:** 119
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2019, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2361 "2019-10-10T14:35:59Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Even if bipartisanship is a pipe dream, it is necessary for conviction in the Senate. > > ~Max Only in the technical sense that yes Republican and Democratic Senators would have to vote for it. That doesn’t mean that Dems are required to act in a bipartisan manner to achieve it. Republican Senators are not going to be more likely to convict because House Democrats played fair. They’ll only vote to convict if the public turns hard on Trump and House Dems have, wisely in my opinion, decided the only way to turn opinion is to strongly control the impeachment procedure. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2019, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2362 "2019-10-10T14:37:29Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I can appreciate that, and will summarize. > [ul][li]The process appears partisan because the Democrats are allegedly refusing to allow the minority to participate (and may be in violation of House rules)…[/ul][/li] The House rules you presented seemed to reference questioning witnesses that were already in front of the House, not the ability for the minority party to issue subpoenas in the first place. Do I have that wrong? Because I know that minority House members have been questioning witnesses in the House. ---
**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 10, 2019, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2363 "2019-10-10T14:38:45Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Even if bipartisanship is a pipe dream, it is necessary for conviction in the Senate. > > ~Max Yes, biartisanship is a pipe dream. Bipartisanship has been stabbed, poisoned, shot and pushed off a bridge. The body has been encased in concrete and shot into the sun. So. Given that, there is no purpose whatsoever in even pretending. Just get on with it, arrest Trump co-conspirators, and let others commit obstruction of justice. Present the case as if you’re presenting it to the American people, not the Republican Senators who have been INSTRUCTED to make up their minds before the evidence has even been collected. ETA; Also what **CarnalK** said ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2019, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2364 "2019-10-10T14:39:28Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > As I’ve heard it explained: the House sets all the rules for an impeachment (source: the Constitution). An impeachment inquiry is not a trial; there is no right of the accused, because there _is_ no accused. It’s an inquiry. > … This is the salient thing. It’s not a grand jury. Or even a trial. (Yet.) > [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > Trump said that they would cooperate with the inquiry (paraphrasing) “If they (the House) give us our rights.” It does not stretch credulity much to believe that no matter what the House does, it will not be a sufficient amount of “rights” granted to convince the Trump administration to cooperate. We’ve clearly witnessed over the last couple of years that Former President Trump\* cannot be reasoned with. Laws? Rules? Protocols? Civility? Those are for suckers and losers. ---
**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 10, 2019, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2365 "2019-10-10T14:42:55Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Points 1-3 don’t apply. Only point 4 does, and it can be summarized this way: > -The only remedy against a criminal president is impeachment. > -If the Senate won’t convict, there’s no remedy. > > But that’s not what the letter said. I’m trying to rationalize the President’s strategy. He may be an idiot, but I am assuming that his lawyers aren’t. Do you have a counterargument? > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > As for his not having to comply with the subpoena, again, that’s not his decision to make. And what is the consequence, aside from impeachment, if he doesn’t? Without a consequence, there is no obligation. There are only two major checks on the Presidency. One is from the Judicial branch, which may rule that the President violated the Constitution. The other is from the Legislative branch, which may impeach and convict the President. Only _one_ of these checks have teeth. If the Supreme Court rules that the president must comply, that’s something else. We haven’t gotten that far. I said that “the President is within his power to refuse [to comply with a subpoena] on even the flimsiest of grounds until the courts strike down those grounds.” ~Max ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2019, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2366 "2019-10-10T14:44:00Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > AIUI, just purposely holding up the money is an illegal act. The “power of the purse” belongs to Congress - if they assign money to something that’s not for the President to second guess. Along those lines, releasing those funds is directly part of his job and he’s asking for a favour before doing so. That’s asking for a bribe. Or he’s using Ukraine’s vulnerable position vis-a-vis Russia to extort the favor. But bribery and extortion are two sides of the same coin, so six of one. Anyway, bribery is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as grounds for impeachment: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The last eight words of Article II. So there’s no argument about whether bribery is one of those “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” because it doesn’t have to be. It’s specifically spelled out. ---
**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 10, 2019, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2367 "2019-10-10T14:47:39Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > What you’ve done here is made a huge assumption – that a partisan process is unlikely to result in a conviction – and based a terrifying precedent on it. I would rather the precedent not be set this way, but that’s jointly the House and Mr. Trump’s decision, not mine. > [@steronz](#): > > What if house Democrats put together a rock solid case all on their own, and the senate has no choice but to convict? Then everything I argue is moot and the president deserves to be convicted. But that’s an equally huge assumption - the exact inverse - as the one I make. ~Max ---
**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 10, 2019, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2368 "2019-10-10T14:49:55Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > So? Hardly anyone is expecting a conviction. The idea is to bring all of this corruption to light, so more people come out to vote against Trump, as well as senators who continue to look the other way. This strategy will backfire on voters like me, who place heavy value on fairness and reject consequentialism. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2019, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2369 "2019-10-10T14:51:32Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I’m trying to rationalize the President’s strategy. He may be an idiot, but I am assuming that his lawyers aren’t. Do you have a counterargument? Given that I’ve been hearing Republican lawyers, and the attorneys for previous administrations, calling the letter “[bananas](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/opinion/trump-impeachment-democrats.html),” “a temper tantrum,” "[completely backwards](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-broad-claims-of-executive-immunity-lead-to-criticism-he-is-acting-above-the-law/2019/10/09/b8811be8-eaaa-11e9-9c6d-436a0df4f31d_story.html), and the like–given that one said the biggest surprise in the letter was that [an attorney would put his name on it](https://www.npr.org/2019/10/09/768697780/former-white-house-counsel-jack-quinn-discusses-trumps-letter-to-congress)–I’m not sure how much time I need to spend looking for a counterargument. People that understand the law far better than I do are saying that this is a blatantly unprofessional document that was almost certainly demanded by an out-of-control client. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2019, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2370 "2019-10-10T14:51:59Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Then everything I argue is moot and the president deserves to be convicted. But that’s an equally huge assumption - the exact inverse - as the one I make. > > ~Max No, you’re saying the House shouldn’t even be able to **try** to put together a rock solid case, because the president can just refuse to cooperate based on a huge assumption that they won’t ever be able to put together a rock solid case. It’s completely circular logic, see? ---
**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 10, 2019, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2371 "2019-10-10T14:53:05Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > This strategy will backfire on voters like me, who place heavy value on fairness and reject consequentialism. You’re arguing that exposing corruption is unfair? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2019, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2372 "2019-10-10T14:53:11Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > If the Supreme Court rules that the president must comply, that’s something else. We haven’t gotten that far. I said that “the President is within his power to refuse [to comply with a subpoena] on even the flimsiest of grounds until the courts strike down those grounds.” > > ~Max This is technically true and not especially interesting. In the same way, I’m within my power to shoot a man on main street until the police arrest me. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2019, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2373 "2019-10-10T14:53:16Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Or he’s using Ukraine’s vulnerable position vis-a-vis Russia to extort the favor. But bribery and extortion are two sides of the same coin, so six of one. > > Anyway, bribery is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as grounds for impeachment: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The last eight words of Article II. So there’s no argument about whether bribery is one of those “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” because it doesn’t have to be. It’s specifically spelled out. That’s the way they should be framing it. Bribery and “power of the purse” are easier for the public to grasp and literally spelled out in the Constitution. ---
**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 10, 2019, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2374 "2019-10-10T14:54:09Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Only in the technical sense that yes Republican and Democratic Senators would have to vote for it. That doesn’t mean that Dems are required to act in a bipartisan manner to achieve it. Republican Senators are not going to be more likely to convict because House Democrats played fair. They’ll only vote to convict if the public turns hard on Trump and House Dems have, wisely in my opinion, decided the only way to turn opinion is to strongly control the impeachment procedure. Assume that the Supreme Court refuses to get involved before the 2020 election or rules in favor of the President’s noncompliance. Also assume that without compliance the Democrats can’t build a case on the Ukraine call. They fall back to what–obstruction of justice? Do you think the Republicans going to convict on _obstruction of justice_ when the President says he would comply in an instant if the Republicans were allowed to participate? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2019, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2375 "2019-10-10T14:59:00Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Assume that the Supreme Court refuses to get involved before the 2020 election or rules in favor of the President’s noncompliance. Also assume that without compliance the Democrats can’t build a case on the Ukraine call. They fall back to what–obstruction of justice? Do you think the Republicans going to convict on _obstruction of justice_ when the President says he would comply in an instant if the Republicans were allowed to participate? > > ~Max I’m not going to assume all that. Some of the whistleblowers will testify. And if all your assumptions come to pass, it’s hopeless anyway and acting bipartisan isn’t going to change anything. ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2019, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2376 "2019-10-10T15:00:18Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > They were scheduled to undergo depositions by Congress this week - one of them today, the other tomorrow. > > It’s far, far, far more likely that Barr had these guys arrested so they couldn’t make their depositions. In fact, I’d bet your mortgage on it! 😉 I’m not reading it that way, JT. From your link: > [@](#): > > Two senior law enforcement officials told NBC News that Parnas and Fruman were arrested at Dulles airport in Washington, D.C. Wednesday. The two were slated to depart on an flight that would have taken them outside the U.S., the sources said. Their exact destination was not immediately known. Unless the House committee was going to take a sudden vacation _en masse_ to, say, Belarus, I wouldn’t have counted on getting depositions from these characters. ---
**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 10, 2019, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2377 "2019-10-10T15:00:54Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Given that I’ve been hearing Republican lawyers, and the attorneys for previous administrations, calling the letter “[bananas](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/opinion/trump-impeachment-democrats.html),” “a temper tantrum,” "[completely backwards](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-broad-claims-of-executive-immunity-lead-to-criticism-he-is-acting-above-the-law/2019/10/09/b8811be8-eaaa-11e9-9c6d-436a0df4f31d_story.html), and the like–given that one said the biggest surprise in the letter was that [an attorney would put his name on it](https://www.npr.org/2019/10/09/768697780/former-white-house-counsel-jack-quinn-discusses-trumps-letter-to-congress)–I’m not sure how much time I need to spend looking for a counterargument. People that understand the law far better than I do are saying that this is a blatantly unprofessional document that was almost certainly demanded by an out-of-control client. Most of the letter _is_ bananas, and I’m only possibly on board with two or three small excerpts. But if you want to dismiss the entire letter with a wave of your hand, why did you ask if “there’s any page that isn’t full of lies”? If you weren’t interested in having that rhetorical question answered, you could have said so earlier. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Knowed\_Out](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/knowed_out/32/7380_2.png) [@Knowed\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowed_Out)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2019, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2378 "2019-10-10T15:07:51Z")
Welp, I filled out forms to both my senators and my rep proclaiming my support to impeach the president. Here’s what NC Senator Tom Tillis sent back. > [@](#): > > Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the complaint regarding President Donald Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. I appreciate hearing from you. > > On August 12, 2019, a member of the intelligence community filed a complaint with the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG). On August 26, 2019, the ICIG forwarded the complaint to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) as required by law. The DNI shared the complaint with the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) for review to determine whether the statute required disclosure of the complaint to the Chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. The OLC determined that the complaint did not fall within the intelligence community whistleblower statute and did not require the DNI to transfer the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees. On September 26, 2019, the House Intelligence Committee held an open hearing to question DNI Joseph Maguire about this complaint and his handling of the disclosure process. He explained to the committee that, because of ambiguity in the law, he had contacted the OLC for legal guidance on how to proceed with this complaint. > > As you may know, the individual filed a complaint based on second-hand information. The complaint outlined the individual’s concerns about a phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky. In the interest of transparency, President Trump declassified both the transcript of his call with President Zelensky and the complaint that was filed. > > Instead of focusing on real issues like securing our border, modernizing our infrastructure, or supporting our military, partisan House members and Speaker Nancy Pelosi are using all of their time and resources to once again try to cast doubt on the results of the 2016 election. There were House members calling for President Trump’s impeachment before he was even sworn in, before the special counsel investigation concluded, and before the transcript of this phone call was released. Each time, they have had to eventually step back from their political rhetoric because the facts were not on their side. It is unfortunate that they are yet again playing political games instead of conducting the work of the American people. > > Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. Please do not hesitate to reach out again about other important issues. At least he responded. Whistleblowers are considered “second hand information,” and Trump’s open appeal to China for Biden dirt doesn’t apply. Nope, no partisanship here. ---
**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 10, 2019, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2379 "2019-10-10T15:08:47Z")
> [@CaptMurdock](#): > > Unless the House committee was going to take a sudden vacation _en masse_ to, say, Belarus, I wouldn’t have counted on getting depositions from these characters. We’ll see when it comes time for them to appear before the Committee. ---
**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 10, 2019, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2380 "2019-10-10T15:10:33Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > No, you’re saying the House shouldn’t even be able to **try** to put together a rock solid case, because the president can just refuse to cooperate based on a huge assumption that they won’t ever be able to put together a rock solid case. > > It’s completely circular logic, see? That’s not what I’m saying. The House shouldn’t even **try** to put together a rock solid case without the appearance of bipartisanship, because the president can just refuse to cooperate based on the apparent lack of bipartisanship. ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=118) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=120)