# 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:** 173
**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 29, 2019, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3441 "2019-10-29T20:43:04Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > That’s been proven into the ground. There **never was a base** for these allegations, so assuming he can tell a hawk from a handsaw, he should have known they were baseless. Okay, on to jury instructions. Is there a reasonable doubt that on July 25, Mr. Trump should have known that all of the aforementioned allegations against the Democratic National Convention or Crowdstrike Holdings Inc were baseless? Is there a reasonable doubt that on July 25, Mr. Trump should have known that all of the aforementioned allegations against Joseph Biden, Hunter Biden, and Burisma Holdings Limited were baseless? If you answer both of these questions in the affirmative, you must acquit Mr. Trump on this charge. ~Max ---
**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 29, 2019, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3442 "2019-10-29T20:46:50Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > I swear we did this lots of pages ago. 😕 Yeah, the Hamsters Union is demanding a break. ---
**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 29, 2019, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3443 "2019-10-29T20:58:06Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Is there a reasonable doubt that on July 25, Mr. Trump should have known that all of the aforementioned allegations against the Democratic National Convention or Crowdstrike Holdings Inc were baseless? Given that the US intelligence community had, by then, spent two years telling the Office of the President, “it was the Russians, it really really REALLY was the Russians, it wasn’t the Chinese, or some 500 pound guy, or anyone else, it was the RUSSIANS”…there can be no _reasonable_ doubt on that one. ---
**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 29, 2019, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3444 "2019-10-29T21:08:50Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > Given that the US intelligence community had, by then, spent two years telling the Office of the President, “it was the Russians, it really really REALLY was the Russians, it wasn’t the Chinese, or some 500 pound guy, or anyone else, it was the RUSSIANS”…there can be no _reasonable_ doubt on that one. But, Putin said it wasn’t the Russians. ---
**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 29, 2019, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3445 "2019-10-29T21:13:58Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > But, Putin said it wasn’t the Russians. And he was very convincing. 🙂 ---
**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 29, 2019, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3446 "2019-10-29T21:31:24Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > Given that the US intelligence community had, by then, spent two years telling the Office of the President, “it was the Russians, it really really REALLY was the Russians, it wasn’t the Chinese, or some 500 pound guy, or anyone else, it was the RUSSIANS”…there can be no _reasonable_ doubt on that one. Mr. Trump apparently doesn’t agree with your hidden premise, which is that when the intelligence community says it was the Russians, there is no reasonable doubt that it was the Russians. We could go way off the deep end on this. There are ellipses in the memorandum right after the word “Crowdstrike”. Presumably Mr. Trump would claim that there are good reasons to suspect something fishy, but that they are classified/a matter of national security. It is not clear whether any of the people who have given testimony so far are aware of what isn’t on the memorandum, although Col. Vindman would probably know. ~Max ---
**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 29, 2019, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3447 "2019-10-29T21:37:17Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Mr. Trump apparently doesn’t agree with your hidden premise, which is that when the intelligence community says it was the Russians, there is no reasonable doubt that it was the Russians. > > We could go way off the deep end on this. There are ellipses in the memorandum right after the word “Crowdstrike”. Presumably Mr. Trump would claim that there are good reasons to suspect something fishy, but that they are classified/a matter of national security. It is not clear whether any of the people who have given testimony so far are aware of what isn’t on the memorandum, although Col. Vindman would probably know. > > ~Max So, he’s relying on stupidity defense. ---
**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 29, 2019, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3448 "2019-10-29T21:43:17Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Mr. Trump apparently doesn’t agree with your hidden premise, which is that when the intelligence community says it was the Russians, there is no reasonable doubt that it was the Russians. Rather, it’s more likely one of two things: 1. Trump doubts it, but his doubt, given the preponderence of evidence, isn’t reasonable. In other words, he’s an irrational conspiracy theorist. 2. Trump actually realizes that it was the Russians, but admitting such would both (a) taint his “huge” victory in 2016, and (b) make it difficult for him to maintain his chummy relationship with Putin. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3449 "2019-10-29T21:43:39Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Mr. Trump apparently doesn’t agree with your hidden premise, which is that when the intelligence community says it was the Russians, there is no reasonable doubt that it was the Russians. > > We could go way off the deep end on this. There are ellipses in the memorandum right after the word “Crowdstrike”. Presumably Mr. Trump would claim that there are good reasons to suspect something fishy, but that they are classified/a matter of national security. It is not clear whether any of the people who have given testimony so far are aware of what isn’t on the memorandum, although Col. Vindman would probably know. > > ~Max You’re moving the goalposts. You said a “reasonable person”. ---
**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 29, 2019, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3450 "2019-10-29T21:48:15Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > So, he’s relying on stupidity defense. I’m not sure what you mean. ~Max ---
**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 29, 2019, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3451 "2019-10-29T21:51:36Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean. > > ~Max Sure you do. > [@](#): > > Mr. Trump apparently doesn’t agree with your hidden premise, which is that when the intelligence community says it was the Russians, there is no reasonable doubt that it was the Russians. ---
**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 29, 2019, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3452 "2019-10-29T21:52:50Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > Rather, it’s more likely one of two things: > > 1. Trump doubts it, but his doubt, given the preponderence of evidence, isn’t reasonable. In other words, he’s an irrational conspiracy theorist. Preponderance of evidence is a different standard, and not enough to dispel a reasonable doubt. The “reasonable” in reasonable doubt does not mean “more than likely”, it’s more of a “is there any possible way to do so without contradicting the facts”. Unless I’m wrong, of course. > [@kenobi\_65](#): > > 1. Trump actually realizes that it was the Russians, but admitting such would both (a) taint his “huge” victory in 2016, and (b) make it difficult for him to maintain his chummy relationship with Putin. This _is_ likely. ~Max ---
**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 29, 2019, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3453 "2019-10-29T21:53:16Z")
And in the real world House Democrats have released a resolution describing the game plan moving forward: “WASHINGTON – Democrats leading the House of Representatives released an eight-page resolution Tuesday that outlines how the next phase of the[impeachment inquiry](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/29/live-trump-impeachment-inquiry-updates-ukraine-expert-testify/2492526001/)into President Donald Trump will operate, offering both sides of the aisle subpoena power as committees embark on public hearings. The resolution from Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern, D-Mass., could be voted on as early as Thursday. It makes clear that information gathered by the six committees that have been conducting oversight into Trump would funnel to the House Judiciary Committee – the panel that has traditionally been charged with impeachment. “None of us came to Congress to impeach a president – but each of us took a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution,” McGovern said.” > **[House resolution outlines public phase of impeachment inquiry, gives GOP...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/29/impeachment-inquiry-resolution-republican-subpoena/2499114001/)** > > The House released a resolution Tuesday outlining the next phase of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, offering Republicans subpoena power as hearings move into public view. ---
**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 29, 2019, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3454 "2019-10-29T21:55:06Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > You’re moving the goalposts. You said a “reasonable person”. I don’t think I made a contradiction, did I? ETA: Let’s say the House managers claim the president had no good reason to ask for the physical server from Ukraine. The administration says they have a good reason, but it’s classified. The jury is asked whether there is any reasonable doubt that Mr. Trump should have known there is no reason to ask for the physical server. Of course it is possible for there to really be a reason, and for that reason to be classified! ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3455 "2019-10-29T22:07:07Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I don’t think I made a contradiction, did I? > > ETA: Let’s say the House managers claim the president had no good reason to ask for the physical server from Ukraine. The administration says they have a good reason, but it’s classified. The jury is asked whether there is any reasonable doubt that Mr. Trump should have known there is no reason to ask for the physical server. Of course it is possible for there to really be a reason, and for that reason to be classified! > > ~Max And the intelligence community doesn’t have access to this magic classified information either? That seems, what’s the word…unreasonable. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3456 "2019-10-29T22:07:13Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Okay, on to jury instructions. > > Is there a reasonable doubt that on July 25, Mr. Trump should have known that all of the aforementioned allegations against the Democratic National Convention or Crowdstrike Holdings Inc were baseless? No, for two different reasons: 1. He is the President of the United States. He has access to the vast investigative resources of the U.S. government. He has had years to have these particular conspiracy theories investigated, but chose not to. And if he chooses to believe that the U.S. government is involved in some massive conspiracy to lie to him, that doesn’t change what he \*should \*know. 2. These allegations never had any basis to begin with. Therefore, a reasonable person would believe they were baseless. If I tell you my next door neighbor was JFK’s true assassin, you can choose to believe that. But your degree of belief doesn’t have any bearing on the reality that it was no more than something I said, something without any evidentiary basis. And in the absence of my producing any evidence, there is no reasonable doubt: you should have known my claim was baseless, period. > [@](#): > > Is there a reasonable doubt that on July 25, Mr. Trump should have known that all of the aforementioned allegations against Joseph Biden, Hunter Biden, and Burisma Holdings Limited were baseless? No, and for the same reasons as above. With the added detail of Trump’s lack of concern about these allegations until it became apparent that Biden might be a political threat to his re-election. (It’s not like any more is known about Hunter Biden and Ukraine in 2019 than in January 2017.) Funny, that. ---
**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 29, 2019, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3457 "2019-10-29T22:07:56Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Preponderance of evidence is a different standard, and not enough to dispel a reasonable doubt. The “reasonable” in reasonable doubt does not mean “more than likely”, it’s more of a “is there any possible way to do so without contradicting the facts”. Unless I’m wrong, of course. What you describe is, I think, closer to the concept of “beyond the shadow of a doubt,” which is a different concept. As per [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt): > [@](#): > > Generally, prosecutors bear the burden of proof and are required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no “reasonable doubt” in the mind of a “reasonable person” that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person’s belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty. Beyond “the shadow of a doubt” is sometimes used interchangeably with beyond reasonable doubt, but this extends beyond the latter, to the extent that it may be considered a next to impossible standard (though at times at a trial the person is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, usually in such situations a plea bargain takes place to give the guilty some leniency in exchange for the time and money a trial would cost both sides). The term “reasonable doubt” is therefore used. ---
**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 29, 2019, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3458 "2019-10-29T22:31:38Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > And the intelligence community doesn’t have access to this magic classified information either? That seems, what’s the word…unreasonable. Whether or not that is unreasonable requires a long and uninteresting debate over whether a reasonable person in the President’s position would or should trust the intelligence community, given the leaks, the investigations of those close to him, etc. Attempting to justify those and other actions could easily lead to a “factual” question for the rationale behind every presidential act, and even private acts before his term. ~Max ---
**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 29, 2019, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3459 "2019-10-29T22:36:40Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Whether or not that is unreasonable requires a long and uninteresting debate over whether a reasonable person in the President’s position would or should trust the intelligence community, given the leaks, the investigations of those close to him, etc. Attempting to justify those and other actions could easily lead to a “factual” question for the rationale behind every presidential act, and even private acts before his term. > > ~Max Jesus H Christ, it’s not complicated. He’s incompetent, corrupt, and obnoxious. Let’s give him the boot. ---
**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 29, 2019, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3460 "2019-10-29T22:43:30Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Jesus H Christ, it’s not complicated. He’s incompetent, corrupt, and obnoxious. Let’s give him the boot. **Max** will agree to all of that but still thinks… what are you doing here, **Max**? Hating on Democrats? Defending Trump? I’m honestly not sure why you’re taking this devil’s advocate position, you’re not getting paid. It’s gotta be miserable defending the indefensible. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=172) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=174)