# 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:** 133
**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 14, 2019, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2641 "2019-10-14T17:48:13Z")
If you were trying add a wink to that post, it didn’t come through. ---
**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 14, 2019, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2642 "2019-10-14T17:49:14Z")
He is asking for evidence which does not exist. The quid pro quo was announced by the White House. Please, _do_ try to keep up! ---
**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 14, 2019, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2643 "2019-10-14T17:51:47Z")
Certainly his request was made to the FBI. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2644 "2019-10-14T17:56:26Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > To my understanding, within the DOJ the SDNY is considered the most prestigious of all the US Attorneys’ offices in the country. Merely through an accident of geography, they handle highly visible, high risk/benefit cases. They’re tough – because they have to be. As such, they have more autonomy than some of the other offices, perhaps. > > As I understand it, it’s a culture and reputation thing. They guard their independence fiercely. > > IANAL and I have no first hand knowledge of this beyond being an avid watcher of matters legal. I think there are some Dopers who have more first-hand knowledge of the reasons underlying for their reputation. Perhaps they’ll speak up. As noted, the geography of the Southern District of NY gives it its cache; this is because it includes Wall Street. As such, it’s an office that gets the biggest and most complex financial crimes. Ergo, they tend to recruit “the best and the brightest”, or at least have that reputation of seeking out the smartest prosecutors. That, in my opinion, is where their reputation comes from. It also leads to a certain arrogance from the SDNY, perhaps based on thinking that they are able to infiltrate and undermine criminal organizations that others cannot, which can translate into a “get out of our way; we know what we are doing and you do not” attitude, even vis a vis other federal agencies. That’s not to say that the AG doesn’t have authority over this part of the justice department, just as with all others. But there are lots of people in Manhattan who are used to being given deference, and who have no compunction about pushing back against any impediments. It’s not that the SDNY couldn’t be shut down by Barr, rather it’s that they’d make a ton of noise in the process. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2645 "2019-10-14T17:56:36Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > He is asking for evidence which does not exist. … Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. > [@JohnT](#): > > … The quid pro quo was announced by the White House. … Yesterday you said it was in the phone call, now you’ve changed your story and say it’s in an announcement by the White House. Could you provide a link to the White House announcement so that I can can view the relocated goalposts? ---
**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 14, 2019, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2646 "2019-10-14T17:56:52Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > At the risk of pointing out the obvious, this claim is false. > > President Trump didn’t ask for any evidence to be “manufactured”; he asked for an investigation. And there was no quid pro quo. Your talking point is out of date. Sondland has testified that Trump himself TOLD HIM to say that there was “no quid pro quo”. There was. We can all see it directly in the transcript provided by the Whitehouse. It’s obvious. Just repeating Trump’s line that it does not exist does not make it not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2647 "2019-10-14T17:57:44Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > And there was no quid pro quo. There was no quid pro quo because Ukraine didn’t conduct an investigation into a baseless rumor, so Trump withheld military aid until the scheme was exposed! ---
**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 14, 2019, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2648 "2019-10-14T17:58:14Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. > > Yesterday you said it was in the phone call, now you’ve changed your story and say it’s in an announcement by the White House. Could you provide a link to the White House announcement so that I can can view the relocated goalposts? It was in the phone call, with the transcript/memorandum of understanding released by the white house. Don’t act like this is all new to you, Ditka. This is all documented, and you are perfectly aware of this. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2649 "2019-10-14T18:01:51Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > … There was. We can all see it directly in the transcript provided by the Whitehouse. It’s obvious. Just repeating Trump’s line that it does not exist does not make it not exist. Then why not quote the relevant portion(s)? Show, don’t tell. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2650 "2019-10-14T18:03:03Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > … This is all documented, and you are perfectly aware of this. Thank you. First off, your claim about “manufacturing evidence” isn’t “documented”. It’s not even true. ---
**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 14, 2019, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2651 "2019-10-14T18:05:28Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Then why not quote the relevant portion(s)? Show, don’t tell. [OK](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21915652&postcount=1277) ---
**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 14, 2019, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2652 "2019-10-14T18:06:45Z")
This is not Trumpland, where you must say the magic words “I am demanding a quid pro quo from you now.” ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2653 "2019-10-14T18:13:33Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > This is not Trumpland, where you must say the magic words “I am demanding a quid pro quo from you now.” I never said the words “quid pro quo” needed to appear. I asked you to cite the portion(s) of the call you believe represent a quid pro quo. Earlier in this thread I said this: > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I read it. It doesn’t show where President Trump made a “promise” either. It’s perfectly clear in the transcript that he wanted the Ukranians to look into the Crowdstrike server and Hunter Biden’s corruption. What’s not clear is what Ukraine was going to get as a result of doing that. The “promise” from President Trump isn’t there. He doesn’t say something like " do X, Y, and Z and you’ll get your Javelins" or “once you’ve done that, I’ll make sure you get the aid money you’ve been waiting for”. I understand some of you think that’s _implied_, but it’s not _stated_, can we agree on at least that basic fact? ---
**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 14, 2019, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2654 "2019-10-14T18:14:52Z")
I’m on the fence about the “manufacturer dirt” part. Maybe Trump expected it, maybe not. So far all of the testimony leaks I’ve read about seem to point to his desire for Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation, something Trump could point to and shout, “Ah ha! See! He’s being investigated!” He could have wanted any evidence, regardless of the truth of that evidence. Probably did. But I don’t think it’s quite a given yet. There’s plenty of evidence about the quid pro quo, though, and lots of other shady stuff. ---
**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 14, 2019, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2655 "2019-10-14T18:20:54Z")
LOL, the guy literally asked China, on TV, to look into Hunter Biden’s _Ukranian_ activities. If that’s not “manufacturing dirt”, I literally have no idea what is. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2656 "2019-10-14T18:21:47Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I never said the words “quid pro quo” needed to appear. I asked you to cite the portion(s) of the call you believe represent a quid pro quo. Earlier in this thread I said this: > [@](#): > > What’s not clear is what Ukraine was going to get as a result of doing that. There are none so blind as those who will not see. ---
**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 14, 2019, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2657 "2019-10-14T18:33:00Z")
Extortion often relies on context. Mob enforcers don’t come into a store saying “pay me money or I will burn down your store.” That’s not how it works. They let you know using cues and context what they expect. You know this. You’re not stupid. That being said, here is some context about the call between Trump and President Zelenskyy: Trump had recently withheld military aid to the Ukraine. Aid that was desperately needed to help Ukraine fend of Russian troops who had attacked them. Aid that was approved by the CONGRESS OF THE UNITES STATES. And Trump himself - Trump… had put a hold on this. Then he called President Zelenskyy. During the call, Zelenskyy said: "I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. \*\*We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps \*\*specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes. (Remember that Trump himself had recently put a hold on this military aid) **Immediately,** Trump then said “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.” He then went on to talk about a nutty conspiracy theory with no basis in fact. A theory that was manufactured to be politically damaging to Trump’s opponents - the nutty “Crowdstrike” conspiracy theory. To summarize: Zelenskyy: We are interested in getting that military aid that Congress promised and you personally are holding up Trump: Let’s talk first about favors to me. Investigate my political opponents. Trump went on then, to say: "\*\*The other thing, \*\*There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me. So there are TWO THINGS that Trump wants. TWO FAVORS. FAVORS that Trump brought up DIRECTLY AFTER Zelenskyy said he’d like the military aid that Congress voted on, and that TRUMP HIMSELF was holding up. It is so fucking obvious what is going on here, I am confident that you will agree that Trump was telling Zelenskyy that he would release the military aid that Congress approved, after Zelenskyy did him these two FAVORS. Both favors involved Ukraine launching investigations into Trump’s political opponents, based on no evidence, and conspiracy theories. ---
**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 14, 2019, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2658 "2019-10-14T18:39:33Z")
I was too slow in typing this and someone else gave an excellent summary first. > [@](#): > > The President: Well it is very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it’s something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she ·doesn’t do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it’s something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn’t say that it’s reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. Translation- we do a lot of stuff for you. Nobody else does. And I don’t think we’re getting very much in return. > [@](#): > > Zelensky:…I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes. Translation- Yes, the US has been very kind. We need more weapons to fight off the Russians. > [@](#): > > The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. Translation- Yeah sure. You need weapons. And I need a favor. In other words, do something for me, and I’ll do something for you. In other words, quid pro quo. ---
**Author:** ![YamatoTwinkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/cc9497/32.png) [@YamatoTwinkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YamatoTwinkie)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2659 "2019-10-14T18:53:24Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > At the risk of pointing out the obvious, this claim is false. > > President Trump didn’t ask for any evidence to be “manufactured”; he asked for an investigation. And there was no quid pro quo. I agree that Trump did not blatantly ask for evidence to be manufactured, however defense funds were held up, and importantly, the Ukrainians _knew_ funds were being held up. It is not a huge leap of logic to assume that the Ukrainians may have deduced (rightly or wrongly) that Trump wasn’t particularly interested in a fair and impartial investigation leading to a complete exoneration of the Bidens, and may have been much more inclined to tell him what he wanted to hear - namely every little piece of dirt that they managed to dig up, even from questionable sourcing methods. As I’ve said previously, the best argument that you can make is that a quid pro quo was not _overt_. Given the context of the withheld funds, and the call mentioning a “not reciprocal” relationship between the US and the Ukraine, and the request for favors, its easy to make a case for an _heavily-implied_ quid pro quo, and arguing otherwise is about as ridiculous as claiming that the mob-boss asking his subordinate to ensure that the local District Attorney “sleeps with the fishes” was really meant as a request to give him a nice aquarium as a gift. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2660 "2019-10-14T19:00:51Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Extortion often relies on context. Mob enforcers don’t come into a store saying “pay me money or I will burn down your store.” That’s not how it works. > They let you know using cues and context what they expect. > > You know this. You’re not stupid. > > That being said, here is some context about the call between Trump and President Zelenskyy: Trump had recently withheld military aid to the Ukraine. Aid that was desperately needed to help Ukraine fend of Russian troops who had attacked them. Aid that was approved by the CONGRESS OF THE UNITES STATES. And Trump himself - Trump… had put a hold on this. > Then he called President Zelenskyy. > > During the call, Zelenskyy said: > "I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. \*\*We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps \*\*specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes. > (Remember that Trump himself had recently put a hold on this military aid) > > **Immediately,** Trump then said “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.” He then went on to talk about a nutty conspiracy theory with no basis in fact. A theory that was manufactured to be politically damaging to Trump’s opponents - the nutty “Crowdstrike” conspiracy theory. > > To summarize: > Zelenskyy: We are interested in getting that military aid that Congress promised and you personally are holding up > Trump: Let’s talk first about favors to me. Investigate my political opponents. > > Trump went on then, to say: "\*\*The other thing, \*\*There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me. > > So there are TWO THINGS that Trump wants. TWO FAVORS. FAVORS that Trump brought up DIRECTLY AFTER Zelenskyy said he’d like the military aid that Congress voted on, and that TRUMP HIMSELF was holding up. > > It is so fucking obvious what is going on here, I am confident that you will agree that Trump was telling Zelenskyy that he would release the military aid that Congress approved, after Zelenskyy did him these two FAVORS. Both favors involved Ukraine launching investigations into Trump’s political opponents, based on no evidence, and conspiracy theories. That’s not quite as bad a misrepresentation as Schiff’s ‘parody’, but it’s pretty close. For starters, Zelensky is asking about _buying_ Javelins. That would be a transaction where they give us money and we give them Javelins. He said nothing about the aid money that we were going to give them. [There are reports that he wasn’t even aware it was being withheld](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ukraine-found-out-us-aid-was-suspended-weeks-after-trump-zelensky-phone-call). Earlier I said this: > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > No, nothing there mentions the $250M / $391M in aid that was supposedly President Trump’s leverage in his quid pro quo. > > “I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time.” “Effort” & “time”; he didn’t mention the money. > > “… the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.” Again, no mention of aid money. The US was helping Ukraine in lots of ways: sanctions on Russia, condemning Russia’s aggression on the global stage, etc. You are imagining that he _must_ be referring to the aid money because that’s what you _want_ it to be about. You’re hearing something that’s not there, that you badly _want_ to be there. Try to take another look at the bit you quoted through a less partisan lens, and then consider again my statement: “He didn’t even mention the financial aid at all on the call” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=132) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=134)