# 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:** 141
**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, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2801 "2019-10-15T23:04:29Z")
> [@Modesty\_Blaise](#): > > Because of the colossal Trump clusterfuck the W administration is now seen as sane and competent and somehow normal. It wasn’t. But this is so much worse we somehow look fondly upon that horrifying administration. It pisses me off.:mad: You and me both. :mad: Especially since I’ve long maintained that without Bush, we would never have had Trump. Rudy Giuliani: So Batshit and Reckless, He Scares _John Bolton_. ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2019, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2802 "2019-10-15T23:04:49Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Legitimately curious, I would expect Rudy to assert client-attorney privilege and possibly prevail on matters not directly related to criminal charges arising from the arrests. IANAL, but [this article](https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/mueller-and-the-limits-of-attorney-client-privilege/) (written during the Mueller investigation) lays out several situations in which attorney-client privilege would _not_ apply, which may be relevant in regards to what Giuliani was doing. The article notes: > [@](#): > > The attorney-client privilege shields from disclosure confidential communications between a person and an attorney, where, essentially, the communication is for the purpose of procuring legal advice and intended to remain confidential. The purpose of the privilege is to promote uncensored communication between client and attorney, so the attorney can develop the best legal advice and strategy for the client and the client can develop an accurate appreciation of her legal situation and decide how best to respond to it. > > The privilege, however, is not unlimited - a legal reality Donald Trump, Jr., might not understand. First, as many clients unhappily learn, it doesn’t cover all their communications on every subject with their lawyers. Some specific things which the article calls out, that would apparently _not_ be covered by attorney-client privilege, include: - communications between a client and attorney for the purpose of committing, continuing, or advancing an illegal or fraudulent act - presence of “non-clients” during such conversations/communications It also notes that a “government attorney” would not be bound by attorney-client privilege if called to testify about potentially illegal activities. Of course, Giuliani isn’t a government attorney, but Trump’s personal attorney. ---
**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 15, 2019, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2803 "2019-10-15T23:26:01Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Do you know if anybody reported white house sources saying Rudy knows where bodies are buried? Legitimately curious, I would expect Rudy to assert client-attorney privilege and possibly prevail on matters not directly related to criminal charges arising from the arrests. > > ~Max IANAL, but can an attorney cite “privilege” if he is covering up his own crimes, or those of his client? If an attorney and his client are believed to be engaged in criminal activities, and the attorney is refusing to provide documents that have been subpoenaed, I really don’t think that can just be handwaved away by “privilege” ---
**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 15, 2019, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2804 "2019-10-15T23:53:21Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > IANAL, but can an attorney cite “privilege” if he is covering up his own crimes Not to my knowledge, also not a lawyer. This is one of those exceptions to privilege. > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > can an attorney cite “privilege” if he is covering up… [crimes] of his client? It depends. If the documents are text messages showing the client talking with his attorney about their legal strategy, then yes, that would generally be privileged. Ostensibly the confidentiality is to be encouraged so that the client is honest so that the attorney can best represent the client. If the documents show the client and attorney conspiring to commit some crime or tort, then privilege is waived. Normally there is a special master or neutral judge who can view the messages _in camera_ to determine whether they are privileged or not. You may remember that federal prosecutors brought in a special prosecutor to go over Michael Cohen’s documents and sort out the privileged ones. Notably, the Congress can’t really call itself a neutral special master. So if we’re talking about potentially withholding documents from Congress based on attorney-client privilege, I think it’s ridiculous for Congress to charge Mr. Giuliani with contempt over that. They could very well ask the courts to appoint a special master. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2019, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2805 "2019-10-15T23:56:24Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > Is it Pence yet? > **[Impeachment inquiry: Vice President Mike Pence refuses to turn over requested...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/15/impeachment-inquiry-mike-pence-refuses-give-democrats-documents/3991036002/)** > > Vice President Mike Pence on Tuesday refused to turn over documents requested by House Democrats as part of their impeachment inquiry. He’s refusing to cooperate. ---
**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 15, 2019, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2806 "2019-10-15T23:57:23Z")
Well, also on point is the little thing where Rudy went on record numerous times stating that in his Ukrainian dealings, he wasn’t acting as Trump’s attorney. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2019, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2807 "2019-10-16T00:06:29Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Well, also on point is the little thing where Rudy went on record numerous times stating that in his Ukrainian dealings, he wasn’t acting as Trump’s attorney. He corrected it each time by saying the opposite immediately after. ---
**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 16, 2019, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2808 "2019-10-16T00:21:24Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Normally there is a special master or neutral judge who can view the messages _in camera_ to determine whether they are privileged or not. Well, I guess normally there is no occasion to question a claim of attorney-client privilege. The only exceptions I can think of are like, Cohen and mobsters. And the privilege is the client’s to claim or waive, not the attorney’s. ~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 16, 2019, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2809 "2019-10-16T01:07:55Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > He corrected it each time by saying the opposite immediately after. Says who? And frankly, it barely matters. How in the world is Giuliani lobbying foreign government officials the act of a personal lawyer? ---
**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 16, 2019, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2810 "2019-10-16T01:20:48Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > IANAL, but can an attorney cite “privilege” if he is covering up his own crimes, or those of his client? If an attorney and his client are believed to be engaged in criminal activities, and the attorney is refusing to provide documents that have been subpoenaed, I really don’t think that can just be handwaved away by “privilege” IANAL either, but attorney-client privilege has a number of exceptions AIUI. You are correct that a party cannot cite privilege for a corrupt purpose, such as covering up his/her crimes. A lawyer cannot assert privilege for aiding his/her client to commit crimes. It’s known as the crime-fraud exception. That’s why State Department employees are ignoring Trump’s assertion of blanket privilege: First, there is no such thing as blanket privilege, and second, they are citing the crime-fraud exception. A party cannot cite privilege for information that is already in the public record. The privilege is waived as soon as the information is put out for public consumption. This is why Trump is going to lose his executive privilege assertion with respect to Don McGahn’s testimony. The information is already in the public record via the Mueller report. A party cannot cite privilege just because a conversation was had. Example: You meet your lawyer in an elevator. You say, “Nice day!” Your lawyer replies, “It is!” That is not privileged communication. So in the context of Rudy and Trump, anything they are doing that is not specifically related to Rudy advising Trump on how to respond to legal jeopardy has no basis for privilege – as **CarnalK** notes. The communication must be for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. I’m sure a Doper attorney can expand on all this further, but I’m fairly sure there is no privilege that can attach to Rudy’s shenanigans for Trump in Ukraine. ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2019, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2811 "2019-10-16T12:52:46Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Just as a point of information, those are IOC dates (basically, the point at which the services have a full squadron of combat-ready aircraft capable of performing the basic mission duties, with trained pilots and maintainers). The first F-35s were delivered to the military years earlier. One or two, sure, and they tinkered with them until they felt confident a whole squadron’s worth was worth buying. Plus you didn’t address my comment that the attempted purchase of Turkey’s squadron was vetoed by Trump. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2019, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2812 "2019-10-16T14:43:47Z")
Congress should add Trump’s connections to Reza Zarrab onto the pile: > **[US charges Turkish bank, linked to Giuliani client, over Iran sanctions...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/15/us-charges-turkish-bank-tied-to-giuliani-client-with-evading-sanctions.html)** > > Federal prosecutors in New York announced charges on Tuesday against a Turkish bank with ties to a gold trader connected to Rudy Giuliani, accusing the financial institution of a multi-billion dollar scheme to evade U.S. sanctions on Iran. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2019, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2813 "2019-10-16T15:19:27Z")
Who would have ever suspected that his [tax documents](https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/newly-released-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies/ar-AAIRhGi?ocid=spartandhp) contain inconsistencies? ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2019, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2814 "2019-10-16T15:36:42Z")
> [@Superdude](#): > > Who would have ever suspected that his [tax documents](https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/newly-released-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies/ar-AAIRhGi?ocid=spartandhp) contain inconsistencies? I wonder what inconsistencies were in the documents that were shredded in [Panama](https://www.apnews.com/ce4dbdd4446c4862bb9c483425554c67)? In an even earlier report - [Report: Trump Panama Tower ‘Riddled’ With Drug, Mob Money](https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-trump-panama-tower-riddled-with-drug-mob-money). ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2019, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2815 "2019-10-16T16:53:53Z")
> [@Railer13](#): > > Oh, bullshit. Remember what you said in post #2707 when you first brought up the delay in delivery of the F-35s to Turkey: > > “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, 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.” > > (bolding mine) > > It’s painfully obvious that you were implying that the F-35 delivery delay was analogous to the delay in the Ukrainian deal. It’s been established that is certainly not the case. But I’m quite sure you won’t admit to intentionally being misleading. The F-35 topic has become a distraction. I intended to offer up another data point about how messy and bureaucratic foreign military sales can be, but at this point it’s become a distraction from the main topic of the thread. I’d suggest we drop that particular example (unless you want to open up a separate thread to discuss it) and focus on my central points, which were: 1. Less than 10 weeks from “we are almost ready to buy more Javelins” to “Trump admin approves new sale of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine” seems pretty reasonable to me. 2. There is no evidence of “the president putting the brakes on a $39 million dollar Javelin purchase”. ---
**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 16, 2019, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2816 "2019-10-16T16:56:27Z")
But he did have the aid stopped, speaking of thread back on track. ---
**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 16, 2019, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2817 "2019-10-16T17:07:09Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > 1. Less than 10 weeks from “we are almost ready to buy more Javelins” to “Trump admin approves new sale of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine” seems pretty reasonable to me. > > 2. There is no evidence of “the president putting the brakes on a $39 million dollar Javelin purchase”. Maybe - just maybe – this White House views giving out $400 million in foreign aid differently than Ukraine putting down $39 million cash on the barrel to buy something from the American defense industry. Crazy idea, huh? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2019, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2818 "2019-10-16T17:27:04Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > But he did have the aid stopped, speaking of thread back on track. There were two separate financial transactions at issue. I tried to make this clear in post #2659. The first one, the $391M in aid, was _not_ mentioned on the call and it’s been reported that Ukraine wasn’t even aware it was being delayed. The second one, a purchase of $39M worth of Javelin missiles, _was_ referenced on the call and appears to have proceeded without any obvious delay, or at least no evidence has been presented that “the president [was] putting the brakes on a $39 million dollar Javelin purchase”. ---
**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 16, 2019, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2819 "2019-10-16T17:30:33Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The first one, the $391M in aid, was _not_ mentioned on the call … You can’t revise history like that. Trump talked about how generous the US was in relation to Europe. It’s laughable that this was not a reference to the aid that Congress directed to be provided to Ukraine. I mean, like out-of-this-planet whackiness to suggest that the comments were about something else. And, of course, true to form, Trump was lying on the phone call when he talked about the U.S. being more generous than Europe. > [@](#): > > …and it’s been reported that Ukraine wasn’t even aware it was being delayed. It’s been reported that Ukraine knew that the aid was contingent on several things. Corrupt things. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2019, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/2820 "2019-10-16T17:38:42Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You can’t revise history like that. Trump talked about how generous the US was in relation to Europe. It’s laughable that this was not a reference to the aid that Congress directed to be provided to Ukraine. I mean, like out-of-this-planet whackiness to suggest that the comments were about something else. … You’re obviously entitled to your own opinions about what is “laughable” or “out-of-this-planet whackiness”, but I’ll repost my thoughts on the relevant portions of the call ‘transcript’ here: > [@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” It seems neither one of us is likely to change our mind about this point, so perhaps its best if we just drop it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=140) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=142)