# 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:** 199
**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:** [November 7, 2019, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3961 "2019-11-07T21:34:44Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Let’s try “Fox News, Breitbart and beyond, and _maybe_ his advisors.” > > Of course he doesn’t have any direct knowledge. He consumes right-wing media, which has always had the purpose of discrediting the Dems: with the truth if any was available, and with whatever they could invent if it wasn’t. > > So if you ask, would “a reasonable person in the President’s position” have reasonable doubts about information from these sources, the answer is, hell yes, they’d be skeptical of every bit of it. I believe you are saying, by implication, that a reasonable person would be skeptical of “every bit” of information from Fox News, Breitbart, and beyond, and maybe the President’s advisors, too. Or at least of the relevant bits, the ones about Crowdstrike and the Bidens. Not only skeptical though. If I understand you correctly, you are implying that a reasonable person would _know_ that Fox News, Breitbart, and beyond, and maybe the President’s advisors, were outright peddling lies so outrageous that they do not deserve to be refuted; or that a reasonable person would be so diligent to find other news sources that refute those claims, assuming that a reasonable person would trust other news sources while distrusting Fox News, Breitbart, and possibly advisors. That is a point of view, even one I can understand. Of course, it hinges on whether a reasonable person should trust those other news sources while not trusting Fox or Breitbart or presidential advisors. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > And your definition of “reasonable doubt” is pure and utter bullshit, by the way. I can’t see the point in debating further with someone who’s just cooked that up. I will invite you to the other thread too, if you care to join. “[THREAD=885046]What should be the standard of proof in a Senate impeachment trial?[/THREAD]” ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2019, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3962 "2019-11-07T21:35:37Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > I’m curious what you think might happen that would trigger #6. He’s never had anything close to a positive approval rating. Even if the impeachment falls utterly flat (which I agree would be a strategic disaster for Dems) I can’t imagine it would convince vast numbers of voters to suddenly approve of Trump’s performance. If somehow the Republicans persuade the general public, including most independents, that the impeachment was just a baseless partisan witch-hunt, that could do it. I personally find that very hard to imagine, but then I found Trump’s nomination and subsequent election hard to imagine, too. I’m not ruling out the possibility that I’m STILL overestimating the intelligence of the American public. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2019, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3963 "2019-11-07T22:45:01Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > I’m curious what you think might happen that would trigger #6. He’s never had anything close to a positive approval rating. Even if the impeachment falls utterly flat (which I agree would be a strategic disaster for Dems) I can’t imagine it would convince vast numbers of voters to suddenly approve of Trump’s performance. Unfortunately they don’t need to approve of Trump’s performance to disapprove of Warren even more. The latest massive NYT poll showed Warren currently losing in all six battlegrounds (and the election) at the moment We can’t fall into the national poll trap again. ---
**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:** [November 7, 2019, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3964 "2019-11-07T23:05:29Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > Unfortunately they don’t need to approve of Trump’s performance to disapprove of Warren even more. The latest massive NYT poll showed Warren currently losing in all six battlegrounds (and the election) at the moment We can’t fall into the national poll trap again. Agreed, but I was responding to **Thing Fish** ’s suggestion that public opinion might swing heavily Trump’s way. I just can’t see that happening. But we’ve already seen him win one election \*despite \*massive public disapproval, so we obviously can’t just assume any opponent will beat him. ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2019, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3965 "2019-11-07T23:24:09Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > I thought I read somewhere that saying someone’s potential testimony may or does fall under executive privilege is not the same as asserting executive privilege. That you need to actually _show up and assert the privilege_ in response to questions. With a former official, and if Trump lawyers aren’t allowed in the closed proceedings, it gets more complicated. So how it would work if he has to comply with the subpoena (which I assume he would have to at least in part) is one of the things the court case would determine, I presume. ---
**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:** [November 8, 2019, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3966 "2019-11-08T00:13:22Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > It is a fact that has been decided in the courts. His university [was declared a fraud.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/04/10/trump-university-settlement-judge-finalized/502387002/) His charity [was declared a fraud.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-agrees-to-shut-down-his-charity-amid-allegations-he-used-it-for-personal-and-political-benefit/2018/12/18/dd3f5030-021b-11e9-9122-82e98f91ee6f_story.html) His tax schemes [are a fraud](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html). I can go on, but I think that’s enough to put to bed the idea that Trump being a conman is an opinion and not a fact. I think you should go on, because in none of those cases do I see a judgement or admission of wrongdoing, much less _personal_ wrongdoing or proof of conning. I could not immediately find the court order for the university settlement (thanks USA Today for leaving out a citation), but it was a _settlement_ and I think it would have made the news if there was an admission or finding of wrongdoing even by civil standards. Yes, the Attorney General of New York said it was a fraud. But that’s the prosecutor! Of course they are going to say it’s a victory and a fraud - that is not a fact, it is an allegation, and one that NY gave up on pursuing. The charity was shut down as another settlement, with the both parties claiming a victory. The Washington Post focused mostly on the allegations of the prosecution, probably because they are true. But as a matter of fact, that has not been established. And then the New York Times piece is one big allegation, not tried by any finder of fact. I don’t live under a rock, and I’m not trying to be apologetic or even supportive of Mr. Trump. Of course I think it is likely that Mr. Trump is a serial conman. I just don’t think that’s a _fact_ in evidence, certainly not one decided by courts. > [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > All the people that I surround myself with say that it is OK to murder my neighbor is not a reasonable defense for murdering my neighbor. Well, calling it murder is sort of jumping the gun, isn’t it? If all of the people I know tell me that a man dressed in all black will come under the dead of night and break into my house and rape my family, I can use that in court to support my theory of self defense when a man dressed in black _did_ come under the dead of night, ignored my warnings, failed to identify himself, got shot and killed… > [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > So, that puts him above the law. He can just claim super secret knowledge that the deep state doesn’t want you to know about, and get out of anything. No, it doesn’t. I’m in favor of eg: the Supreme Court evaluating the claim of privilege _in camera_, provided Congress asks them to and has some reasonable suspicion that the privilege is being abused. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3967 "2019-11-08T01:23:14Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I think you should go on, because in none of those cases do I see a judgement or admission of wrongdoing, much less _personal_ wrongdoing or proof of conning. Right, people often spend many millions of dollars when they’re completely innocent. Apparently if Donald Trump indeed did shoot a person on 5th Avenue, and there is a video of him doing it and the person he shot was your mother, you’d still look for more evidence before making a hundred percent sure it happened. There’s a reason increasingly few dopers are willing to engage you. Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk ---
**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:** [November 8, 2019, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3968 "2019-11-08T01:50:45Z")
_CNN_: [The lawyer for the Ukraine whistleblower sent a letter to the White House warning Trump to “cease and desist” attacking his client](https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/ukraine-whistleblower-trump-cease-and-desist/index.html) > [@](#): > > “I am writing out of deep concern that your client, the President of the United States, is engaging in rhetoric and activity that places my client, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower, and their family in physical danger,” Andrew Bakaj wrote to White House counsel Pat Cipollone in a Wednesday letter obtained by CNN’s Anderson Cooper. > > “I am writing to respectfully request that you counsel your client on the legal and ethical peril in which he is placing himself should anyone be physically harmed as a result of his, or his surrogates’, behavior,” he said. ---
**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:** [November 8, 2019, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3969 "2019-11-08T02:00:06Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Right, people often spend many millions of dollars when they’re completely innocent. > > Apparently if Donald Trump indeed did shoot a person on 5th Avenue, and there is a video of him doing it and the person he shot was your mother, you’d still look for more evidence before making a hundred percent sure it happened. If I was the president, and I was really innocent, and there was a (false) video of what appears to be me shooting a person on 5th avenue, but I really didn’t have the time to deal with that in light of all the things I need to do for this country as president, and I could afford to settle, I would definitely settle the case. If people were going to impeach me over it (if I settled), that changes the calculus a little. If I think the impeachment has no chance of resulting in conviction, and dealing with that is better for my (very important) policy agenda, I would probably bite the bullet, settle, and try to take care of the more important business. Do I think Donald Trump is so principled? Ha! Of course not. But it is still a reasonable doubt in my mind - I don’t know the guy well, I haven’t watched his show or followed his celebrity status, and I receive seriously mixed messages (online/news people vs. real life/local news people) about his patriotism and sense of duty. I like to think that it’s obvious the President is no patriot, that most people around here are plain wrong and even ignorant, but I cannot rid myself of the self doubt that is so encouraged. I am not _sure_ that the president did something wrong where it matters (legally). I am not sure that he did not approach Ukraine with the goal of reducing corruption and getting to the bottom of conspiracy theories that allege risks to the national security or corrupt abuse of power at home. I can’t convict on abuse of power until I know more, or at the very least that there is no more to know. I _really_ don’t want to jump the gun here, because next time around I might actually like the President in the hot seat. ~Max ---
**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:** [November 8, 2019, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3970 "2019-11-08T02:16:33Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I am not sure that he did not approach Ukraine with the goal of reducing corruption and getting to the bottom of conspiracy theories that allege risks to the national security or corrupt abuse of power at home. In the released transcript of the phone call, the word “corruption” is never mentioned. Trump says “Biden” three times. ---
**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:** [November 8, 2019, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3971 "2019-11-08T02:32:53Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > If I was the president, and I was really innocent, and there was a (false) video of what appears to be me shooting a person on 5th avenue, but I really didn’t have the time to deal with that in light of all the things I need to do for this country as president, and I could afford to settle, I would definitely settle the case. > > If people were going to impeach me over it (if I settled), that changes the calculus a little. If I think the impeachment has no chance of resulting in conviction, and dealing with that is better for my (very important) policy agenda, I would probably bite the bullet, settle, and try to take care of the more important business. > > Do I think Donald Trump is so principled? Ha! Of course not. But it is still a reasonable doubt in my mind - I don’t know the guy well, I haven’t watched his show or followed his celebrity status, and I receive seriously mixed messages (online/news people vs. real life/local news people) about his patriotism and sense of duty. I like to think that it’s obvious the President is no patriot, that most people around here are plain wrong and even ignorant, but I cannot rid myself of the self doubt that is so encouraged. I am not _sure_ that the president did something wrong where it matters (legally). I am not sure that he did not approach Ukraine with the goal of reducing corruption and getting to the bottom of conspiracy theories that allege risks to the national security or corrupt abuse of power at home. > > I can’t convict on abuse of power until I know more, or at the very least that there is no more to know. I _really_ don’t want to jump the gun here, because next time around I might actually like the President in the hot seat. > > ~Max Honestly, is he worth it? Is Trump’s vanity and power and reputation worth more than the whole of these United States of America? Frankly, if there’s even a decent chance that he’s guilty of what is alleged (and I think he is entirely guilty of all that and more), is this one man’s continued employment worth the legacy that an acquittal would lead to? The future abuses of power? The future unlimited power of the person we call the president, whomever that might be? I’d rather it come to pass that we fire an innocent man than that we live under the yoke of a possible corrupt tyrant. And we, after all, are only taking about firing him from his job. Not prison. Not execution. Not fines or deportation or loss of any kind except loss of employment. And I heard him say that he’s losing money by holding this job, so he’d be financially better off if fired, by his own estimation. ---
**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:** [November 8, 2019, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3972 "2019-11-08T03:12:27Z")
I’ve been off painting a mural while sick with the flu, so forgive me if this was posted, but how about this for headline of the day: [Rudy Hires New Lawyers To Stand By Helplessly And Watch Him Admit To Crimes On Twitter](https://abovethelaw.com/2019/11/rudy-hires-new-lawyers-to-stand-by-helplessly-and-watch-him-admit-to-crimes-on-twitter/) ---
**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:** [November 8, 2019, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3973 "2019-11-08T03:29:30Z")
CNN: House Intelligence Committee subpoenas Mick Mulvaney for impeachment inquiry testimony. > **[Mick Mulvaney refuses to comply with House subpoena and doesn't show up for...](https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/mick-mulvaney-subpoena/index.html)** > > Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney refused to comply with House impeachment investigators' subpoena for a closed-door deposition Friday, citing "absolute immunity" from testifying. I have almost zero confidence that he’ll actually show up, but a tiny part of me thinks that he’s been roasting in the fires of the Wrath of the Con for the past couple weeks after his disastrous press conference, so maybe, just maybe, he wants a little payback… But probably not. ---
**Author:** ![aurora\_maire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aurora_maire/32/328_2.png) [@aurora\_maire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aurora_maire)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3974 "2019-11-08T03:42:59Z")
> [@MulderMuffin](#): > > CNN: House Intelligence Committee subpoenas Mick Mulvaney for impeachment inquiry testimony. > [https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/mick-mulvaney-subpoena/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/mick-mulvaney-subpoena/index.html) > > I have almost zero confidence that he’ll actually show up, but a tiny part of me thinks that he’s been roasting in the fires of the Wrath of the Con for the past couple weeks after his disastrous press conference, so maybe, just maybe, he wants a little payback… > > But probably not. He’s probably already started writing his book. That’s way more important for all his enablers than, you know, doing the right thing. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3975 "2019-11-08T04:17:49Z")
Stranger things have happened… and almost certainly will. ---
**Author:** ![Fugazi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f08c70/32.png) [@Fugazi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fugazi)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3976 "2019-11-08T09:06:07Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Right, people often spend many millions of dollars when they’re completely innocent. > > Apparently if Donald Trump indeed did shoot a person on 5th Avenue, and there is a video of him doing it and the person he shot was your mother, you’d still look for more evidence before making a hundred percent sure it happened. > > There’s a reason increasingly few dopers are willing to engage you. > > Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk Well, ya know. Trump’s gun could have been loaded with blanks and the actual bullet came from a grassy knoll, or something. We’re going to need ballistic tests done. What? They have? But was it done at an FBI certified lab? Well then, I think we still have some reasonable doubt. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3977 "2019-11-08T14:16:44Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > … I just don’t think that’s a _fact_ in evidence, certainly not one decided by courts… Trump University. Total scam, front to back. Court decided, twenty five million dollars. We done ? ---
**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:** [November 8, 2019, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3978 "2019-11-08T14:22:47Z")
No, not done, let’s continue the list… Trump Foundation. Admission of crimes which benefited the Trump campaign, settled for $2 million. Stormy Daniels, paid off with $130,000 of campaign donor money, his _personal attorney_ is currently sitting in prison for this one. ---
**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:** [November 8, 2019, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3979 "2019-11-08T14:30:14Z")
Oh I was so naive! I felt optimistic and hopeful that in this wonderful country, a guy who can barely read could achieve having a university bear his name! But as it turns out, he’s just a dirty, rotten con-man. A fool! I was a fool I tell ya! ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3980 "2019-11-08T14:37:24Z")
I think you’re all wasting your time. For some people, unless DJT lit a candle and held his palm over the flame and said “quid pro quo” three times while being filmed, then he obviously did no wrong. I see one of two things happening: 1. The public testimony causes public opinion to dramatically shift to where 75%+ are in favor of removal, and Republicans in the Senate reluctantly lance the boil to remove the pus from office. 2. The American public, unable to comprehend anything that doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker, snoozes through the televised testimony and not one single Republican votes to convict. I now think (2) is infinitely more likely than (1). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=198) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=200)