# 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:** 136
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2701 "2019-10-14T22:43:37Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Isn’t the withholding of funds _authorized by Congress_ by itself a problem, with or without the quid pro quo? As I understand it, the people in charge of disbursement of the Congressionally ordered funds questioned the legality of withholding the money, at which point [Trump authorized a third party to over-take control of the funding (and continue to withhold them](https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-shifted-authority-over-ukraine-aid-amid-legal-concerns-11570717571)). People can nitpick the legality of this or that all they want when it comes to Trump, but _why on earth does everything he does reek of a Consciousness of Guilt_? ---
**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, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2702 "2019-10-14T23:01:34Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You’re still misquoting him. And no, I don’t “see the quid pro quo now”. I see why you think it’s _implied_, but I don’t find your assumptions / summaries there convincing (or accurate). If we can both agree, as **YamatoTwinkie** does, that no quid pro quo is overtly stated, I’m content to leave you with your own interpretation of what might be implied. It is not one shared by me though. As I thought should be obvious, this post of mine was not intended to be interpreted as a direct quote. I gave the direct quotes in my previous post. But thank you for your answer that if a quid pro quo is not OVERTLY stated, then it cannot exist. Personally, I find that this is akin to looking at a dog, and saying “well it might well be a cat, we can’t tell for sure until we check it’s DNA.” Suffice it to say that you are in a tiny, tiny minority. ---
**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, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2703 "2019-10-14T23:20:21Z")
> [@YamatoTwinkie](#): > > **HD** ,even taking the background of $391 million aid package off the table, and charitably assuming it was being withheld by Trump for nebulous “corruption” reasons completely separate from the contents of the phone call, we’re _still_ left with **the president putting the brakes on a $39 million dollar Javelin purchase** , and a veiled threat to the Ukraine that the current “non-reciprocal” nature of the relationship may cause the US to stop being so “very, very good” to it, all to investigate conspiracy theories about Joe Biden and the DNC, and to work with his personal lawyer. (emphasis mine) The highlighted bit is news to me. What’s the source? The closest I could find was a headline from ABC News a couple weeks ago which says pretty much the opposite: “[Trump admin approves new sale of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-admin-approves-sale-anti-tank-weapons-ukraine/story?id=65989898)” (admittedly, that’s a dubious source). ---
**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, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2704 "2019-10-14T23:26:44Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > (emphasis mine) > > The highlighted bit is news to me. What’s the source? The closest I could find was a headline from ABC News a couple weeks ago which says pretty much the opposite: “[Trump admin approves new sale of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-admin-approves-sale-anti-tank-weapons-ukraine/story?id=65989898)” (admittedly, that’s a dubious source). Yes, we now know, as of a couple of weeks ago, the dollar amount for the Javelin purchase that Zeleskyy was talking about on the phone call. The purchase that he wanted to make but couldn’t. That’s the cite. ---
**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, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2705 "2019-10-14T23:31:28Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > (emphasis mine) > > The highlighted bit is news to me. What’s the source? The closest I could find was a headline from ABC News a couple weeks ago which says pretty much the opposite: “[Trump admin approves new sale of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-admin-approves-sale-anti-tank-weapons-ukraine/story?id=65989898)” (admittedly, that’s a dubious source). Well, we know that the call requesting the javelins was in July. And this approval - which still must go through the bureaucratic process- didn’t come until October, after the demand for Biden info has come to light. Some might view that as confirming the fact that they had been withholding the approval. YMMV. ---
**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, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2706 "2019-10-14T23:39:50Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Isn’t the withholding of funds _authorized by Congress_ by itself a problem, with or without the quid pro quo? Not particularly, at least to me. There might be whole host of reasons that the executive branch doesn’t spend all the money that Congress authorizes, or as quickly as its authorized to do so. “Corruption” seems like a pretty good reason for exactly that. Here’s a WaPo story from a couple of months ago: [Trump administration to place new restrictions on billions in aid for Puerto Rico amid island’s political crisis](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/01/trump-administration-place-new-restrictions-billions-aid-puerto-rico-amid-islands-political-crisis/) > [@](#): > > The Trump administration will place new restrictions on billions of dollars in federal disaster aid for Puerto Rico, according to two senior government officials briefed on the plan, as the island struggles to recover from a weeks-long political crisis that has forced the governor to announce his resignation. > > The decision will impose new safeguards on about $8.3 billion in Housing and Urban Development disaster mitigation funding to Puerto Rico, as well as about $770 million in similar funding for the U.S. Virgin Islands, according to the senior officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. > > … > > The move comes as Puerto Rico is grappling with one of its most severe political crises in memory, which started in July when two former officials in Gov. Ricardo Rosselló’s administration were arrested by the FBI on corruption charges over the misuse of federal contracts. > > … ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2707 "2019-10-14T23:52:44Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Not particularly, at least to me. There might be whole host of reasons that the executive branch doesn’t spend all the money that Congress authorizes, or as quickly as its authorized to do so. “Corruption” seems like a pretty good reason for exactly that. Here’s a WaPo story from a couple of months ago: [Trump administration to place new restrictions on billions in aid for Puerto Rico amid island’s political crisis](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/01/trump-administration-place-new-restrictions-billions-aid-puerto-rico-amid-islands-political-crisis/) You’ll note that this time - they come out and announce why, and the prior time it was done in secret? Where is there such a cite for the Ukrainian funds? Got one? ---
**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, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2708 "2019-10-14T23:55:37Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Well, we know that the call requesting the javelins was in July. … To be precise, Zelensky wasn’t “requesting the javelins” on the call. He 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.” I’d emphasize the “almost ready” bit. And less than 10 weeks later that request was approved by the White House. That sounds pretty reasonable for the normal bureaucratic mess that is foreign military sales. For comparison, Turkey joined the F-35 program in 2002. It took them [16 years to get their first jet](https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-priorities/2018/06/21/turkey-gets-first-f-35-as-congress-put-pressure-on-pentagon-to-stop-future-deliveries/), and even now, over a year later, we won’t let them take it (or any of the other F-35s they ostensibly own) home to Turkey. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2019, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2709 "2019-10-15T00:02:32Z")
> [@simster](#): > > You’ll note that this time - they come out and announce why, and the prior time it was done in secret? > > Where is there such a cite for the Ukrainian funds? Got one? I don’t have a cite, but does your asking for one mean that we agree that “the withholding of funds authorized by Congress by itself” is not really a problem? That withholding / delaying some spending authorized by Congress is a fairly routine function of the executive branch? ---
**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 15, 2019, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2710 "2019-10-15T00:16:50Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > To be precise, Zelensky wasn’t “requesting the javelins” on the call. He 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.” > > I’d emphasize the “almost ready” bit. And less than 10 weeks later that request was approved by the White House. That sounds pretty reasonable for the normal bureaucratic mess that is foreign military sales. For comparison, Turkey joined the F-35 program in 2002. It took them [16 years to get their first jet](https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-priorities/2018/06/21/turkey-gets-first-f-35-as-congress-put-pressure-on-pentagon-to-stop-future-deliveries/), and even now, over a year later, we won’t let them take it (or any of the other F-35s they ostensibly own) home to Turkey. Great point! Moreover, the impact, if any, that the current scandal has had on this approval is probably unknowable. ---
**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 15, 2019, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2711 "2019-10-15T00:31:23Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t have a cite, but does your asking for one mean that we agree that “the withholding of funds authorized by Congress by itself” is not really a problem? That withholding / delaying some spending authorized by Congress is a fairly routine function of the executive branch? Withholding the spending of funds during the Nixon Administration resulted in the Impoundment Control Act which makes it illegal to fail to faithfully execute budgetary laws. So what you’re implying here is wrong (that it isn’t a big deal). ---
**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 15, 2019, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2712 "2019-10-15T01:23:29Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t have a cite, but does your asking for one mean that we agree that “the withholding of funds authorized by Congress by itself” is not really a problem? That withholding / delaying some spending authorized by Congress is a fairly routine function of the executive branch? No, we don’t agree to that. Neither did the U.S. District Court for Western Texas when they ruled just three days ago that[Trump can’t just arbitrarily start, stop, and move around funds that have been appropriated and authorized by Congress.](https://www.lawfareblog.com/district-court-rules-against-trump-border-wall-case) ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2019, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2713 "2019-10-15T02:34:03Z")
**How do you Teeming Millions explain this interesting thing?** [Support for the impeachment inquiry](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/do-americans-support-impeaching-president-trump/) continues to grow, now over 50%, with rises not just among Ds but among Independents and even within those who identify as R. But Trump’s [net approval](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo)is within statistical noise flat, staying within a short margin of his long term averaging roughly 12 under (today -11.5). He’s NOT becoming more unpopular as support for the impeachment inquiry grows, even as much of his own party is angry over his actions in Syria with Turkey. Why not and what does that portend, if anything? ---
**Author:** ![Railer13](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/railer13/32/9742_2.png) [@Railer13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Railer13)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2019, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2714 "2019-10-15T02:53:15Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’d emphasize the “almost ready” bit. And less than 10 weeks later that request was approved by the White House. That sounds pretty reasonable for the normal bureaucratic mess that is foreign military sales. For comparison, Turkey joined the F-35 program in 2002. It took them [16 years to get their first jet](https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-priorities/2018/06/21/turkey-gets-first-f-35-as-congress-put-pressure-on-pentagon-to-stop-future-deliveries/), and even now, over a year later, we won’t let them take it (or any of the other F-35s they ostensibly own) home to Turkey. Do you have a cite that shows that the 16-year delay was due to waiting for White House approval? No? Then it’s not really a valid comparison, is it? In fact, there’s very little similarity between these two transactions. ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2019, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2715 "2019-10-15T03:14:11Z")
Good grief. Twitter is blowing up tonight with news about Fiona Hill’s testimony. > [@WaPost](#): > > Fiona Hill, the White House’s former top Russia adviser, told impeachment investigators on Monday that Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, ran a shadow foreign policy in Ukraine that circumvented U.S. officials and career diplomats in order to personally benefit President Trump, according to a person familiar with her testimony. > … > Hill told lawmakers that she confronted Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, about Giuliani’s activities which, she testified, were not coordinated with the officials responsible for carrying out U.S. foreign policy, this person said on the condition of anonymity to disclose details of her deposition. > **[Trump’s ex-Russia adviser told impeachment investigators of Giuliani’s...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trumps-former-top-russia-adviser-to-testify-in-house-impeachment-probe/2019/10/14/e6015c1c-ee34-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html)** > > Fiona Hill, who resigned from her National Security Council post earlier this year, provided roughly 10 hours of testimony. ---
**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 15, 2019, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2716 "2019-10-15T03:14:23Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **How do you Teeming Millions explain this interesting thing?** > > [Support for the impeachment inquiry](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/do-americans-support-impeaching-president-trump/) continues to grow, now over 50%, with rises not just among Ds but among Independents and even within those who identify as R. > > But Trump’s [net approval](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo)is within statistical noise flat, staying within a short margin of his long term averaging roughly 12 under (today -11.5). > > He’s NOT becoming more unpopular as support for the impeachment inquiry grows, even as much of his own party is angry over his actions in Syria with Turkey. Why not and what does that portend, if anything? It suggests to me at least as far as the impeachment inquiry that some people want to hear the charges first and perhaps see a trial before making a decision on whether to change their minds about Trump. Suggests, mind you. I have no idea if this is the case. ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2019, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2717 "2019-10-15T03:17:47Z")
…and in the New York Times - [Bolton Objected to Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Calling Giuliani ‘a Hand Grenade’](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/us/politics/bolton-giuliani-fiona-hill-testimony.html) > [@](#): > > Mr. Bolton instructed Fiona Hill, the senior director for Russian and Eurasian affairs, to notify the chief lawyer for the National Security Council that Mr. Giuliani was working with Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, on a rogue operation with legal implications, Ms. Hill told the investigators, according to two people familiar with her closed-door testimony. > > “I am not part of whatever drug deal Rudy and Mulvaney are cooking up,” Mr. Bolton, a Yale-trained lawyer, told Ms. Hill to tell White House lawyers, according to the testimony. > > It was not the first time Mr. Bolton expressed grave concerns to Ms. Hill about Mr. Giuliani. “Giuliani’s a hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up,” Ms. Hill quoted Mr. Bolton saying during an earlier conversation. Any bets on Bolton getting a subpoena? ---
**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 15, 2019, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2718 "2019-10-15T03:20:17Z")
How low have we sunk, when _John Bolton_ is the voice of integrity and reason within an “administration”? ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2019, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2719 "2019-10-15T03:22:56Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **How do you Teeming Millions explain this interesting thing?** > > [Support for the impeachment inquiry](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/do-americans-support-impeaching-president-trump/) continues to grow, now over 50%, with rises not just among Ds but among Independents and even within those who identify as R. > > But Trump’s [net approval](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo)is within statistical noise flat, staying within a short margin of his long term averaging roughly 12 under (today -11.5). > > He’s NOT becoming more unpopular as support for the impeachment inquiry grows, even as much of his own party is angry over his actions in Syria with Turkey. Why not and what does that portend, if anything? 42% think he’s just swell, and 50% want him tar & feathered. Makes perfect sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2019, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2720 "2019-10-15T03:52:12Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **How do you Teeming Millions explain this interesting thing?** > > [Support for the impeachment inquiry](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/do-americans-support-impeaching-president-trump/) continues to grow, now over 50%, with rises not just among Ds but among Independents and even within those who identify as R. > > But Trump’s [net approval](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo)is within statistical noise flat, staying within a short margin of his long term averaging roughly 12 under (today -11.5). > > He’s NOT becoming more unpopular as support for the impeachment inquiry grows, even as much of his own party is angry over his actions in Syria with Turkey. Why not and what does that portend, if anything? His approval rating probably won’t go much below that. If they haven’t been persuaded yet, they’re probably never going to be. The increase in support for impeachment is coming from the people who were apathetic or uninformed before. The ceiling of support for impeachment is about 60% then. Which probably isnt enough to get enough Republican senators on board to remove him. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=135) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=137)