# 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:** 157
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3121 "2019-10-22T21:03:50Z")
I just finished the entire PDF - I think Trump may actually be fucked. The whole “there is no quid pro quo” defense hangs on the fact that Trump kept repeating “this isn’t a quid pro quo” and then saying, basically, “but if you don’t do what I want, we’re at a stalemate” - meaning no money for Ukraine. But it’s not a quid pro quo because Trump kept chanting it. Give me all your money or I’ll shoot you in the face! But don’t worry, this isn’t an armed robbery. ---
**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 22, 2019, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3122 "2019-10-22T21:12:32Z")
Max seems to have missed this. > [@JohnT](#): > > The crime is Bribery and it’s spelled out in the Constitution, guys. The Constitution is silent as to whether it’s the offering or taking of bribes, so we may assume both are valid. > > Art 2, Sec 4: > > “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.” ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3123 "2019-10-22T21:13:41Z")
Also to add - it was a very well written, clear narrative that puts the whole series of events in perspective. You can tell this guy’s passion for Ukraine; there was no way he was just going to roll over and say, “what color?” when Trump tells him to shit. I’m thinking the name Bill Taylor may become extremely prominent in the coming years. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3124 "2019-10-22T22:05:38Z")
So at what point is Trump subpoenaed to testify? What happens then? ---
**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 22, 2019, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3125 "2019-10-22T22:11:04Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > So at what point is Trump subpoenaed to testify? What happens then? I don’t see why he hasn’t been already. (In fact, I still can’t believe his team outmaneuvered the Mueller investigation to keep him from testifying then.) But I know exactly what will happen – his team and Barr’s will fight tooth nail and claw against the subpeona, employing every motion and appeal available, to keep their man from swearing an oath. And then, when the House impeaches him anyway, he’ll tweet that it’s unfair because they never even talked to him! ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3126 "2019-10-22T22:37:24Z")
> [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > [Full text of Amb. Taylor’s opening statement.](https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1911-taylor-opening-statement/71cb2f887efc7eb76629/optimized/full.pdf#page=1) What happens now? How is Bill Taylor going to be attacked by the Whitehouse? That testimony is particularly clear and damning, and I don’t imagine how it can be discredited, but I know that they are going to try. Will there be some sort of paper trail that documents the delay in the security assistance? And who was issuing those orders? It also appears, that although Pence was only mentioned once in that testimony, he was in this up to his eyebrows. With this in mind, is further evidence of Pence’s complicity going to emerge (or alternatively, some contemporaneous documents that he was fighting it but ultimately followed orders?) ---
**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 22, 2019, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3127 "2019-10-22T22:41:41Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > … > That testimony is particularly clear and damning, and I don’t imagine how it can be discredited, but I know that they are going to try. > … If he ever voted for a Democrat and failed to keep it a secret, you can bet your ass that Trump will be shouting it from the mountaintops. Unless he’s feeling particularly, you know, low energy that day. Then, he’ll just be tweeting it from his phone. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3128 "2019-10-22T23:04:50Z")
> [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > [Full text of Amb. Taylor’s opening statement.](https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1911-taylor-opening-statement/71cb2f887efc7eb76629/optimized/full.pdf#page=1) :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3129 "2019-10-22T23:15:34Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Long and short of it, it appears… from this statement… that Trump and team weren’t even interested in the investigation. They just wanted Ukraine to _announce_ they were investigating the Biden kid. > [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > That’s where it begins. The whole thing about being blackmailed is that as long as the blackmailer has something over you, you have to continue to capitulate. > > First, they have to announce there’s an investigation. The next time they need something, they have to announce that evidence has been found. It doesn’t matter if it’s real or not, we’ve already established that a third of the country will believe any bullshit that backs up anything Trump wants to say. … Even just the ‘you must announce an investigation’ part would have worked like gangbusters for Trump, because the media would have been reporting it as though it were real—in large font, front page, Breaking News on CNN, etc. etc. etc. far into the night. Reporters would have included a half-sentence in each ten-minute segment to the effect that ‘no actual evidence against Biden has been made public’…but the story, day after day, night after night, would have been “Biden Under Investigation.” It worked beautifully against Hillary in 2016. And it would have worked for 2020 against Biden. …if not for that meddling whistle-blower. (One month\* since that news broke. Hard to believe, but true.) \*[Timeline: Tracking the whistleblower, Trump and Ukraine | AP News](https://www.apnews.com/310241fb94e24458905f99afc9d948d6) ---
**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 23, 2019, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3130 "2019-10-23T00:52:05Z")
[This](https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/politics/mcconnell-denies-trump-call-ukraine-perfect/index.html) may be the biggest sign that Trump’s certainty of protection by the Senate is less sure than we thought. > [@](#): > > Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that he never had – or at least doesn’t recall having – a conversation with President Donald Trump in which he described Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as perfect. > > McConnell’s statement comes after Trump asserted earlier this month that McConnell deemed the White House transcript of the conversation, which is at the center of the House’s impeachment inquiry into the President, completely innocent. Trump has also said multiple times that the call was perfect, including during his Cabinet meeting on Monday. > > McConnell, asked at his weekly news conference in the Capitol if he believed the President handled the Ukrainian situation perfectly, said, “We’ve not had any conversations on that subject.” > > When pushed on whether Trump was lying about an exchange between the pair, the Kentucky Republican responded, “You have to ask him. I don’t recall any conversations with the President about that phone call.” When the rattiest of rats is trying to put some distance from the ship concluding that it may actually be really sinking begins to seem most reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b487fb/32.png) [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walken_After_Midnight)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3131 "2019-10-23T01:25:11Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > How is Bill Taylor going to be attacked by the Whitehouse? “[Radical unelected bureaucrat waging war on the Constitution.](https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/1186764048953675776)” - White House Press Secretary Trump hasn’t tweeted much today, so I expect he’s working on a nickname for Taylor. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3132 "2019-10-23T01:47:03Z")
> [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > “[Radical unelected bureaucrat waging war on the Constitution.](https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/1186764048953675776)” - White House Press Secretary > > Trump hasn’t tweeted much today, so I expect he’s working on a nickname for Taylor. Tattle Taylor? ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3133 "2019-10-23T01:53:00Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > Tattle Taylor? He’s not that clever. He’ll come up with a gem like “Liddle’ Bill Taylor”. ---
**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 23, 2019, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3134 "2019-10-23T02:24:01Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Within the Constitution I find an inherent authority for the President to poersonally investigate and uphold the Laws of the United States, and further that the Congress lacks authority to deny the President his constitutional grant of executive power. Congress may shape the law, and the Supreme Court may interpret it, but the President is personally responsible for putting the law into action. > > The Congress may by law create officers subordinate to the president, to assist him in his duties, and may even restrict the President’s authority to fire these officers in cases where the officers exercise a legislative and not executive power. But the power to investigate an individual suspected of committing some crime against the United States does not fall under that exception, even if that individual is a political rival’s family member. > > Even if the President does not have these powers, the Attorney General does, by statute. If the Attorney General orders an investigation of a political candidate’s family member based on probable cause, I do not find room to impeach the President for encourageing or cooperating with that investigation. > > It may also be appropriate for the president to ask a foreign country to investigate a political rival’s family member. Within the Constitution I find that the President has the power to meet with foreign ministers, including heads of state. If an existing domestic investigation calls for foreign cooperation, I find that the President is within his power to raise the subject with the head of that foreign state. > > Neither do I find any problem with the President’s use of a personal representative or special envoy, especially when the position of ambassador is vacant. > > In the present case, I am of the opinion that it is _possible_ that the President or Attorney General had or reasonably believed they had probable cause to order an investigation of Hunter Biden or Burisman Holdings, LLC for criminal acts against the United States committed in Ukraine, and that the investigation required assistance from Ukrainian authorities. Therefore it is _possible_ for it to have been appropriate when the President asked the President of Ukraine to work with the Attorney General and a personal representative. Until this possibility is ruled out, I am staunchly against conviction in the Senate for the high crime or misdemeanor of abuse of authority on these grounds. > > […] While that answers the literal question you raised (emphasis added): > [@](#): > > The question is this: is it **necessarily** an abuse of power for the President of the United States to personally ask a foreign country to investigate a political rival’s family member? That’s sort of like responding to question of whether it’s okay for a doctor to accept money and saying “Yes!” even though the discussion is about a doctor who took money off-the-books to give someone heavy narcotics, way beyond any valid medical need or dosage. It’s the answer to the literal question but completely irrelevant to the actual question being asked. The actual question being asked is, “Did the President have corrupt purpose in trying to bypass investigative procedural norms of separation between politics and non-partisan law enforcement and in attempting to directly apply pressure against foreign governments to investigate or produce (honestly or not) evidence against his political rival?” ---
**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 23, 2019, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3135 "2019-10-23T02:55:59Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > [This](https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/politics/mcconnell-denies-trump-call-ukraine-perfect/index.html) may be the biggest sign that Trump’s certainty of protection by the Senate is less sure than we thought. > When the rattiest of rats is trying to put some distance from the ship concluding that it may actually be really sinking begins to seem most reasonable. I think you are right. Moscow Mitch has made a number of surprising moves lately that demonstrate in subtle ways that he could break with Trump. He understands polling about as well as anyone, and preserving his Senate majority is top of his list. Trump has a low cunning understanding that McConnell’s support is only reliable to the extent Trump can deliver the election to that majority. I’d say that becomes a less forgone outcome every day. People are just sick of this. [Support for Impeaching Trump Soars Among Independents](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-poll/support-for-impeaching-trump-soars-among-independents-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1X200Y). (Reuters) > [@](#): > > Support for impeaching U.S. President Donald Trump surged among political independents and rose by three percentage points overall since last week, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Tuesday. ---
**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 23, 2019, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3136 "2019-10-23T02:56:10Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The actual question being asked is, “Did the President have corrupt purpose in trying to bypass investigative procedural norms of separation between politics and non-partisan law enforcement and in attempting to directly apply pressure against foreign governments to investigate or produce (honestly or not) evidence against his political rival?” Responding out of order, but I don’t think that’s a strong question. The presumption is of innocence and the burden for corrupt purpose is beyond a reasonable doubt - these are my opinions of course, but I believe they are shared by most if not all Republican Senators who constitute the jury majority. I’m speculating, but something as simple as “We didn’t have an ambassador at the time and I thought I/Rudy/Bill Barr could do a better job than Mr. Taylor” would prevent me from finding corrupt purpose without as-of-yet-unseen evidence to the contrary. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3137 "2019-10-23T03:00:24Z")
> [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > “[Radical unelected bureaucrat waging war on the Constitution.](https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/1186764048953675776)” - White House Press Secretary > > Trump hasn’t tweeted much today, so I expect he’s working on a nickname for Taylor. A West Point graduate, Vietnam Veteran (101st Airborne) with nearly 50 years of public service… Since his high school graduation, only his two year masters program at Harvard have not been in service to our nation. Yet the True Believers will attempt to dishonor him. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3138 "2019-10-23T03:08:09Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > … > > [Support for Impeaching Trump Soars Among Independents](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-poll/support-for-impeaching-trump-soars-among-independents-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1X200Y). (Reuters) > > > [@](#): > > > > Quote: > > Support for impeaching U.S. President Donald Trump surged among political independents and rose by three percentage points overall since last week, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Tuesday. Increasing by 3 percentage points constitutes “surging” and “soaring”? ---
**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 23, 2019, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3139 "2019-10-23T03:21:02Z")
It jumped from 33% to 45% among independents, as the headline says. Pretty big surge (about a 33% improvement) to me. ---
**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 23, 2019, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3140 "2019-10-23T03:35:15Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Responding out of order, but I don’t think that’s a strong question. The presumption is of innocence and the burden for corrupt purpose is beyond a reasonable doubt - these are my opinions of course, but I believe they are shared by most if not all Republican Senators who constitute the jury majority. I’m speculating, but something as simple as “We didn’t have an ambassador at the time and I thought I/Rudy/Bill Barr could do a better job than Mr. Taylor” would prevent me from finding corrupt purpose without as-of-yet-unseen evidence to the contrary. > > ~Max The evidence is still coming in, of course, but I would note that this isn’t a criminal conviction. If you are prosecuted of a crime, you are separated from your family, put behind bars, and your career future wrecked. There’s some reason to be careful about your verdict. If you are not found guilty of the crime, even though you did it, it’s likely that you’ll never offend again anyways (or improve at getting away with it even more). The risk of NOT jailing is not amazingly huge in nearly all cases. For the President, if fired, he goes on to a money making lecture series career and lives a wealthy and comfortable existence. But if he’s guilty, and is allowed to stay in his position, then he is building corruption into the system, he is exposed to those who may hold evidence of his transgressions, etc. Just the fact that Trump has 20+ close criminal acquaintances regardless of Ukraine or anything is already sufficient basis for impeachment and removal. We are not convicting a crime, we are asking whether Donald Trump performs in “a manner becoming of a gentleman”. Despite statements to the contrary, impeachable conduct is not criminal conduct as suitably provable to take it to court, it’s whether a reasonable person would take the sense that Trump is a trustworthy person who can be trusted to faithfully execute his Oath of Office in, at all times, an honorable fashion. > **[High crimes and misdemeanors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors)** > > The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. > The impeachment of the King's Chancellor, Michael de la Pole, 1st Earl of Suffolk in 1386 was the first case to use this charge. One charge under this heading alleged that de la Pole broke a pro... [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=156) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=158)