# 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:** 122
**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, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2421 "2019-10-10T16:22:31Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I believe the answer has been given more than once already. I didn’t see it. Could you please assume that it was an honest question and if you don’t want to answer, go right ahead and not fucking answer. ---
**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, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2422 "2019-10-10T16:25:55Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > This is a very weird back-and-forth. You offered some defenses of the specific aspects of the letter, which is what I’d asked for. But I assumed you meant them sincerely, not as an attempt at rationalization. I found them unpersuasive, and when I explained why, you explained that you were trying to rationalize the letter, and implied that since the president’s attorneys weren’t crazy, the letter probably wasn’t. When I explained why I also found that reasoning unpersuasive, you’re suggesting my original question was rhetorical. Sorry for the confusion. I read the letter, thought it was wacko, read it a second time, and decided that there are a couple points that I sincerely agree with. Then I extrapolated from those points a strategy that I would use, if I were defending the President’s actions, which I am sort of doing in this thread. I rationalize with sincerity, if that makes sense. So when you wrote, > [@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. That is an accurate representation of my honest opinion, despite my having reached it by building off select arguments from a wacko letter. If you challenge my opinion on grounds other than “that’s not what the letter said”, I will attempt to defend myself. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’ll also point out that I asked that original question immediately after I read the first three pages of the letter, long before I’d heard the feedback from high-level attorneys and legal professors that the letter makes a mockery of the law. Sorry about that. ~Max ---
**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 10, 2019, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2423 "2019-10-10T16:33:06Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > The Representative wants a full House vote on whether to authorize the impeachment inquiry. The Senator said he had not yet seen evidence that the president should be impeached, and would like to see the “facts”. > > ~Max The impeachment inquiry is the process by which those facts are gathered. ---
**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, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2424 "2019-10-10T16:33:59Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Would it be o.k. with you if they were forced to agree that all subpoenas, witnesses, questions etc.pertain to the issue at hand-impeachment? I fully expect that if the Republicans are allowed to call witnesses, issue subpoenas etc, what we’ll see is the issues muddied and trampled on to such an extent that the entire investigation will be bogged down forever. Which is exactly their game plan. If the Republicans are offered this olive branch, they will set it on fire and use it to burn down whatever they can find. I expect that most of the witnesses they call, and subpoenas they issue would probably be related to Benghazi or Hillary’s emails. ---
**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, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2425 "2019-10-10T16:34:08Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > > [@Max\_S](#): > > > > > [@Czarcasm](#): > > > > > > This doesn’t have jack to do with bipartisanship, because the Republicans have no interest in participating in this impeachment process. The only reason they want in is to turn it into an attack on the Bidens, so why don’t you tell me how giving them an open invite to hijack the process will be to anyone’s advantage? > > > > Would you still like me to respond to this, in light of [POST=21908809]post #2398[/POST]? > > Yes, I want you to directly respond to what I wrote. I believe I have since answered the same exact question in a more recent response to another of your posts. Unless you have an objection I’ll respond to that thread of posts. > [@Max\_S](#): > > I do [support hijacking the impeachment process to go after the Bidens], to an extent, depending on what you mean by “to go after the Bidens”. I would subpoena the Department of Justice and ask if they had an open investigation on the Bidens before the phone call. If not, I would almost certainly impeach the president, absent some compelling reason provided by him to ask a foreign country to open an investigation of a political rival. If they did have an investigation, I would ask for the reasons. If there aren’t valid reasons, I would impeach the president for abusing his power for political gain. > > ~Max ~Max ---
**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 10, 2019, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2426 "2019-10-10T16:38:43Z")
> **[Two of Rudy Giuliani's Cronies Just Got Nailed for Illegally Buying Political...](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/rudy-giuliani-associates-indictment-trump-ukraine-donations-pete-sessions-897392/)** > > They’re also closely tied to Trump’s troubles in Ukraine A Ukrainian official wanted ambassador Yovanovich removed and Giuliani’s fixers are accused of giving money to “congressman 1” to put pressure on to get rid of her. Rumors are that the congressman may have been Rep Pete Sessions of Texas, who received $3 million from a pro trump PAC and wrote a letter to Pompeo to complain about the ambassador. Things that make you go hmm . Apparently these two fixers are Eastern European born but US citizens. Curious how they got citizenship when people who just want honest work are kept away. ---
**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, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2427 "2019-10-10T16:44:02Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > But the investigation isn’t about whether the President had grounds to investigate the Bidens - _even if he did_, his direct request for Ukraine to do so, particularly in the context of an apparent quid pro quo and his (illegal) withholding of funds allocated by Congress to Ukraine, are the issues at hand. The Bidens could be guilty as sin (although there’s no evidence that this is so) and Trump still would have committed impeachable offenses. We disagree on this point. I have a full explanation in the works in response to **drad dog** ’s [POST=21898359]post #1877[/POST] from six days ago. The ball is in my court, so to speak. ~Max ---
**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, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2428 "2019-10-10T16:44:15Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I believe I have since answered the same exact question in a more recent response to another of your posts. Unless you have an objection I’ll respond to that thread of posts. > > ~Max That’s a nice layout of what _you_ would do, but it doesn’t come close to answering my question of whether the Republicans should be allowed to turn the impeachment process into a proceeding about the Bidens. ---
**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, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2429 "2019-10-10T16:46:43Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The way to establish that is twofold: > > 1. The president isn’t in the position to investigate anyone. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies are. If the president thinks someone should be investigated, those agencies have hotlines he can call. Yes, sorry, when I wrote president I meant the executive branch. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > 1. If there are grounds to investigate the Bidens, the only appropriate witnesses for Congress to call are law enforcement officials. The only time Congress needs to be investigating anyone is in order to conduct oversight of the executive branch. Since Biden is no longer in the executive branch, that’s no longer necessary. Agreed. ~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, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2430 "2019-10-10T16:49:37Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > Trump wasn’t investigating the Bidens. Really. Trump didn’t ask US intelligence to investigate the Bidens. He wanted Ukraine to do that. That’s all kinds of fucked up. If there wasn’t _some sort of investigation_ going on by the U.S. I would need some sort of extraordinary defense from the President himself explaining why he shouldn’t be impeached for abusing his power. ~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, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2431 "2019-10-10T16:54:36Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Yes, sorry, when I wrote president I meant the executive branch. > Agreed. > > ~Max So if the Dems call an FBI witness to ask if there was an open investigation, would that satisfy you? Or do you still need the Republicans to have subpoena power? ---
**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 10, 2019, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2432 "2019-10-10T16:58:08Z")
The whistleblower wrote a memo describing a conversation with a “visibly shaken” White House official who had listened to the call. According to CBS this is the full text of the memo: > **[Read the whistleblower's memo about Trump's Ukraine call, as described to CBS...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-whistleblower-complaint-read-full-text-whistleblower-memo-trump-ukraine-call-described-cbs-news-exclusive/)** > > The memo, dated July 26, is based on a conversation the whistleblower had with an unnamed White House official who listened to the call ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2019, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2433 "2019-10-10T16:58:12Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > This strategy will backfire on voters like me, who place heavy value on fairness and reject consequentialismx But love corruption and incompetence? You might care to rethink the things that motivate you in the voting booth. ---
**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, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2434 "2019-10-10T17:04:53Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Yes, sorry, when I wrote president I meant the executive branch. Definitely the executive branch should be doing the investigating. But it’s more specific than that. The FBI (and, to a smaller degree, CIA and NSA and other agencies) are responsible for conducting these investigations. There are really good reasons for handling them this way, and this is the statutorily correct way to handle such investigations. **The president doesn’t have a role in initiating these investigations**. Now, there is a way that an FBI witness could exonerate the president. If it came out that Trump was asking for Ukraine’s help _at the behest of the FBI_, because for example they were having trouble breaking through a bureaucratic logjam, then that would cast the president’s actions in an entirely new light. We would want to see, of course, that it was legitimately initiated by the FBI, not something where Trump told Giuliani to tell Barr to tell the FBI to call him and ask him to talk to Ukraine. So if you want Republicans to have the right to call that sort of exculpatory evidence, then sure. But I just made that evidence up. I’ve seen zero sign that it exists, or that anybody thinks it exists. Anything short of this would not be exculpatory, because it’s not just the executive branch as a whole that investigates. It’s specific agencies within the branch, and that’s by design, and violating that process is what’s gotten us to this point. Edit: actually, I forgot about Giuliani. I cannot think of any evidence that would excuse the president’s involvement of his own personal lawyer in an international investigation of a US citizen. ---
**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, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2435 "2019-10-10T17:05:43Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > **Max** or anyone - are there any “non-extreme” commentators whom you believe have supported the President’s actions and subsequent posture? I don’t know any non-extreme commentators who have absolutely supported the President and say he did nothing wrong, except maybe Lindsey Graham if you don’t want to call him extreme (ha…). There are some who say we don’t know for sure yet. That’s my position, and it is shared by at least [some Republicans](https://www.apnews.com/4edbc8d5ccdd4604ba6720322b3809d3). There are many who say, not only does it look bad, but it is definitely bad. ~Max ---
**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 10, 2019, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2436 "2019-10-10T17:08:41Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Look, if the full House authorizes a committee to investigate the president, then bipartisanship or not, he has to comply with the subpoenas or invoke executive privilege or risk being impeached for obstruction. I would _prefer_ bipartisanship, but that’s not legally necessary for impeachment. > > But we haven’t established that authorization. Whether or not the committees have jurisdiction for the subpoenas they are currently handing out, is for the anybody to decide until the courts or the Senate rule on the matter (if they rule on the matter). Sure, you can impeach him for obstruction and let the Republican Senate decide whether the Democratic House actually exercised their power to subpoena the administration. > ~Max Here is their authorization: Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 5: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2019, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2437 "2019-10-10T17:16:39Z")
> [@MulderMuffin](#): > > Here is their authorization: > > Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution: > The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. > … Hell, there’s all the proof of illegitimately you need! “Chuse” ain’t a word! 😃 And thanx for the response **Max**. Graham truly confounds me. I recall him on the Daily Show, playing pool and drinking w/ Jon Stewart, going on about how HORRIBLE Trump was. To hear him now - really makes me wonder how he can have any self respect. ---
**Author:** ![Rhodes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhodes/32/273_2.png) [@Rhodes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhodes)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2019, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2438 "2019-10-10T17:20:17Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I’m not sure of the strategy though of not allowing a full house vote. It would definitely make things look a little more legit. Is she afraid of some softness in her caucus? If I’ve understood the thread correctly so far: As of now, _only the majority party can issue subpoenas_. Rs and Ds can both question witnesses and examine documents, but only the Ds can decide what direction the investigation takes. In an official impeachment procedure, _both parties will be able to issue subpoenas_. Rs may attempt to derail by investigating the Bidens instead, or investigating the investigators, or whatever distraction they can think of. ---
**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 10, 2019, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2439 "2019-10-10T17:26:54Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Hell, there’s all the proof of illegitimately you need! “Chuse” ain’t a word! 😃 It’s at least as good as covfefe! 😃 ---
**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, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2440 "2019-10-10T17:30:24Z")
> [@Rhodes](#): > > If I’ve understood the thread correctly so far: > > As of now, _only the majority party can issue subpoenas_. Rs and Ds can both question witnesses and examine documents, but only the Ds can decide what direction the investigation takes. > > In an official impeachment procedure, _both parties will be able to issue subpoenas_. Rs may attempt to derail by investigating the Bidens instead, or investigating the investigators, or whatever distraction they can think of. I mean, I guessed there was some fear of triggering something like that but I see no reason why the “official impeachment procedure” is required to go that way. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=121) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=123)