# 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:** 129
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2019, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2561 "2019-10-11T16:24:52Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > Good. > > So, off to the supremes? Maybe not quite yet. Note that the decision was handed down by a three judge panel. I’m guessing that the lawyers will ask the full D.C. Circuit Court to review the panel’s decision. [Of course, seven of the Court’s 12 judges were appointed by Democrats.🙂](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit) Then after the full Court decides - either way - the lawyers will appeal to the Supreme Court. That appeal will go to one Justice, who happens to be John Roberts. He can either accept the petition to appeal, or deny it, which will just start another round of procedures. It’s true that the Supreme Court can act really quickly, when it makes up its mind to do it. But this is like a game of bridge. You have to play every trick before the game can end. The sheer number of procedures is going to slow down the process. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2019, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2562 "2019-10-11T16:27:13Z")
> [@SmellMyWort](#): > > Hum, it seems that a Trump appointee at the Office of Management and Budget was involved with signing off on some of the paperwork required to delay the aid for Ukraine, which supposedly is a deviation from the normal protocol there. > [https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/10/politics/ukraine-aid-omb-political-appointee-congress-impeachment/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/10/politics/ukraine-aid-omb-political-appointee-congress-impeachment/index.html) Just to add to this, which kinda got lost in the latest Guiliani story. > [@](#): > > Normally a career budget official signs such documents. Sources told CNN it is highly unusual for a political appointee to be involved in signing off on such a freeze. > … > [C]areer budget officials raised concerns about signing the documents because they believed such a move may have run afoul of laws requiring OMB to spend money as it is appropriated by Congress, according to a congressional aide. > … > There were other signs this OMB process on Ukraine didn’t play out in the usual fashion. **For one, the freeze had been ordered directly by Trump in June** , according to an administration official. After receiving the directive, OMB sat on the funds for months. > [@](#): > > Another source familiar with the situation said there was a legitimate reason for Duffey to personally sign off on the freeze. Relatively new to OMB, Duffey (the political appointee) wanted a better understanding of how the apportionment process worked, a source said. I’m not sure why he couldn’t have just watched a training film or discussed this with career officials. > [@](#): > > “The idea that administration officials would not be involved in budget execution, including apportionment authority, after decades of precedent, is absolutely ludicrous,” said Rachel Semmel, a spokeswoman for OMB. “It is absurd to suggest that the President and his administration officials should not play a leadership role in ensuring taxpayer dollars are well spent.” I would agree that it’s absurd to suggest what is noted above, as a general rule. But if the reasons the admin acted in the way it did was not to ensure taxpayer dollars are well spent, but instead for private gain, then obviously this is a problem. Not that this is a groundbreaking assertion. I’m just saying that this bears watching, I think. ---
**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 11, 2019, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2563 "2019-10-11T16:28:37Z")
> [@Kent\_Clark](#): > > The sheer number of procedures is going to slow down the process. Which, at this point, is the only trick Trump has to play in this bridge game. Jeez, this is getting really meta now. ---
**Author:** ![Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambrosio_Spinola)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2019, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2564 "2019-10-11T16:34:17Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > As I understand, Congress can examine anyone’s returns for the purpose of determining if changes to the tax laws are warranted. They don’t need to be part of a criminal investigation at all. This is true. But keep in mind that there are two cases - one, brought by Richard Neal’s subcommittee under the statutory right to retrieve any tax return directly from Treasury, is still undecided in district court. This one was filed by House Oversight and deals with a subpoena issued to Trump’s accountant, Mazars. In this case, and in another currently before the Second Circuit, Mazars has taken the position that they don’t give a shit and will obey the court to either withhold the information or produce it. ---
**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 11, 2019, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2565 "2019-10-11T16:48:43Z")
> [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](#): > > This is true. But keep in mind that there are two cases - one, brought by Richard Neal’s subcommittee under the statutory right to retrieve any tax return directly from Treasury, is still undecided in district court. This one was filed by House Oversight and deals with a subpoena issued to Trump’s accountant, Mazars. In this case, and in another currently before the Second Circuit, Mazars has taken the position that they don’t give a shit and will obey the court to either withhold the information or produce it. Thanks, it’s getting so you can’t tell the subpoenas without a program. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2019, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2566 "2019-10-11T16:49:34Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Maybe I’m a rube but this sounds big. I would not be surprised if she has some friends who might he emboldened by this to come forward. I don’t know anything about her, but it seemed inevitable that at some point, someone who worked in the Trump admin would come forward who for whatever reason actually _wants_ to testify as to what went on. It sounds big, indeed. We will see what happens. ---
**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 11, 2019, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2567 "2019-10-11T16:50:26Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > [The article is a little lengthier now](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/appeals-court-rules-against-trump-in-fight-with-congress-over-presidents-accounting-firm-records/2019/10/11/42933894-b9ea-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-low_trumpcourt-records-11a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans): Rao’s dissent is even a little more bonkers when you consider that the law that allows congress to subpoena anyone’s tax returns was written specifically with President Harding in mind. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2019, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2568 "2019-10-11T17:05:43Z")
nm ---
**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 11, 2019, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2569 "2019-10-11T17:18:25Z")
[Nothing to see here, just Lev Parnas at Bush 1’s funeral.](https://twitter.com/a_team1983/status/1182666643727618056?s=20) ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2019, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2570 "2019-10-11T17:23:36Z")
> [@Kent\_Clark](#): > > Then after the full Court decides - either way - the lawyers will appeal to the Supreme Court. That appeal will go to one Justice, who happens to be John Roberts. He can either accept the petition to appeal, or deny it, which will just start another round of procedures. As implied by others, Roberts doesn’t decide if the appeal will be heard. They all vote on it. Regarding Roberts “deciding” on whether the appeal is heard by the court as the swing vote, I’m still not cynical enough to believe that it’s a forgone conclusion the other conservatives are guaranteed to vote against bringing it up. If I were a justice, this would not seem to be the best way to build a reputation for myself as fair-minded, which I certainly would want to do. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2019, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2571 "2019-10-11T17:41:54Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > As implied by others, Roberts doesn’t decide if the appeal will be heard. They all vote on it. > > Regarding Roberts “deciding” on whether the appeal is heard by the court as the swing vote, I’m still not cynical enough to believe that it’s a forgone conclusion the other conservatives are guaranteed to vote against bringing it up. If I were a justice, this would not seem to be the best way to build a reputation for myself as fair-minded, which I certainly would want to do. I think Roberts would rule on a motion for an emergency stay. But, yes, all justices would vote on a cert petition. ---
**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 11, 2019, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2572 "2019-10-11T17:52:28Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > As implied by others, Roberts doesn’t decide if the appeal will be heard. They all vote on it. > > Regarding Roberts “deciding” on whether the appeal is heard by the court as the swing vote, I’m still not cynical enough to believe that it’s a forgone conclusion the other conservatives are guaranteed to vote against bringing it up. If I were a justice, this would not seem to be **the best way to build a reputation for myself as fair-minded** , which I certainly would want to do. (bolding mine) Why would a SCOTUS justice care about whether they had a “fair-minded” reputation? For their next job interview? ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2019, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2573 "2019-10-11T18:00:20Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > Dissent was Judge Rao. > > Appointed by Trump to fill the seat vacated by Kavanaugh. > Rao’s dissent: > > ``` > "Investigations of impeachable offenses simply are not, and never have been, within Congress’s legislative power." > > ``` Somebody please send this man a copy of the constitution with article 1 section 2 highlighted. ---
**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 11, 2019, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2574 "2019-10-11T18:05:14Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Somebody please send this man a copy of the constitution with article 1 section 2 highlighted. Literally nobody can do that. edit: [cite](https://gfycat.com/phonydrearygannet-the-lord-of-the-rings-eowyn) ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2019, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2575 "2019-10-11T18:10:41Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Somebody please send this **man** a copy of the constitution with article 1 section 2 highlighted. woman. :smack: ETA: Damn, not only missed the edit window but I didn’t even get in before the obvious snark. ---
**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 11, 2019, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2576 "2019-10-11T18:11:46Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > (bolding mine) > > Why would a SCOTUS justice care about whether they had a “fair-minded” reputation? For their next job interview? For their legacy. Their place in history. And Roberts is quite mindful of that. ---
**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 11, 2019, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2577 "2019-10-11T18:19:02Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > For their legacy. Their place in history. And Roberts is quite mindful of that. You might be right about Roberts, but most of the rest seem pretty locked into their ideological channels. **Fiddle Peghead** was arguing that they might be more “fair-minded” on this issue. I’m skeptical. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2019, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2578 "2019-10-11T18:20:34Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > You might be right about Roberts, but most of the rest seem pretty locked into their ideological channels. **Fiddle Peghead** was arguing that they might be more “fair-minded” on this issue. I’m skeptical. No, but they might want to appear more fair minded if they know they are going to lose anyways. ---
**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 11, 2019, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2579 "2019-10-11T18:24:25Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > You might be right about Roberts, but most of the rest seem pretty locked into their ideological channels. **Fiddle Peghead** was arguing that they might be more “fair-minded” on this issue. I’m skeptical. I agree with you. Which is why Roberts has become the swing vote. As Chief Justice, he’s the only one really concerned with the legacy issue. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2019, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2580 "2019-10-11T18:52:54Z")
Once they have the ultimate independence of a seat on the Supreme Court, they might guard that independence in a Niemolleran sense of preventing divide and conquer. If the judiciary is sidelined then you don’t need them anymore. Or maybe they won’t. A naked move to summarily dismiss Congress would be ruled 8-1 against with a dissent by Thomas. Anything else I’m not sure about. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=128) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=130)