# 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:** 201
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4001 "2019-11-08T19:20:53Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > The fact that the President was elected by the states is a big factor in weighing the importance of his position. I don’t particularly care if the President loses his job, I care that the states(/people) are disenfranchised. But I am making the same argument across two threads, and I invite you to join us in the debate thread. > > ~Max Every president is elected. This appears to be an argument that the entire concept of impeachment is illegitimate. Impeachment doesn’t disenfranchise anyone. It is essential if we desire to not live in a criminal dictatorship. I don’t think anyone voted for that. I don’t remember that being on the ballot. ---
**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, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4002 "2019-11-08T19:28:07Z")
John Bolton is a tease. [Amy Fiscus](https://twitter.com/amyfiscus/status/1192883050390134784), _NYT_: > [@](#): > > John Bolton knows about many meetings and conversations on Ukraine that House investigators haven’t heard about yet, his lawyer says ETA: Or his lawyer is. ---
**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:** [November 8, 2019, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4003 "2019-11-08T19:31:30Z")
> [@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. > > 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. > 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… > 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 Well he was pushing to initiate an investigation of Biden and his son by holding back public money. So he is committing the crime of extortion. The “fighting corruption” defense would depend on his intent and how it was manifest. One good clue is that he did it in secret and hid the transcript. If he is not “fighting corruption” in any other context or venue then he loses the benefit of the doubt. If he doesn’t mention “corruption” in the call, then he loses the BOTD. I say this based on prior behaviors by all presidents. You are missing the forest for the trees IMO. The call was corrupt in it’s conception. Trying to engineer a hindsight explanation involving his concern about the world? Do you really think that deserves the benefit of the doubt? It’s too late for these explanations to have any weight. ---
**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:** [November 8, 2019, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4004 "2019-11-08T19:32:32Z")
> [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > John Bolton is a tease. > > [Amy Fiscus](https://twitter.com/amyfiscus/status/1192883050390134784), _NYT_: > > ETA: Or his lawyer is. Or his literary agent. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4005 "2019-11-08T19:35:35Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > And I lamented that they preempted Gilligan’s Island. I can remember so vividly asking my mother wtf was going on. My employer hires a bunch of kids straight out of college and, occasionally, it makes me feel a little old by comparison. Well, all I have to do to feel young is to drop by the SDMB for a few minutes every now and again … ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4006 "2019-11-08T19:36:35Z")
I remember watching the hearings on the back porch, as my mom ironed. I was 13. Would this thread be the right place to discuss the difference in public sentiment/congressional behavior between now and then? As I recall it, in 73 Repubs in Congress were not so unified, expressing an unwillingness to even CONSIDER guilt. Not were the Dems unified in pursuing impeachment/conviction. I did not perceive and do not recall Americans being so clearly divided. It seemed as tho at least a good portion of citizens/reps respected the process and were interested in the evidence. Not - not so much. Am I correct in my recollection of 73? If so, ho how do people explain the change? It really is disheartening to think that so many of us have become so solidified in our beliefs/prejudices, and so disrespectful of our public institutions, but I’m hard pressed to find an alternative explanation. ---
**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:** [November 8, 2019, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4007 "2019-11-08T19:51:00Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > The fact that the President was elected by the states is a big factor in weighing the importance of his position. I don’t particularly care if the President loses his job, I care that the states(/people) are disenfranchised. But I am making the same argument across two threads, and I invite you to join us in the debate thread. > > ~Max The main population of disenfranchised in the US are those who voted against trump, for hillary, all 65,853,514 of us. We get lectured about how it was our fault, about how if we don’t treat the trumpers with enough care, and concern for their feelings, they are going to bring the world down. We have to invent ways to not alienate them, when they just want to see our tears? I think that we have let this run too long without enforcing subpeonas and legal showdowns. We have given life to evil in the machine by letting this run on for so long. PS: You sure like directing traffic around to these discussions. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4008 "2019-11-08T20:12:11Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#): > > Schiff himself said the summary “was meant to be at least part in parody." And it clearly was partly parody. His summary was this\*: > > > [@](#): > > > > It reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates. We’ve been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I am going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my Attorney General Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy. You’re going to love him. Trust me. You know what I’m asking. And so I’m only going to say this a few more times. In a few more ways. And by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked. > > > > This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn’t such a graphic betrayal of the president’s oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there’s nothing the president says here that is in America’s interest after all. > > “I’m only going to say this seven times” and a few other lines are obvious parody. But he also clearly set it up as a characterization and not as quoting, so I have no blame for him at all. The Trump propaganda side is happy to strip things of context and twist them to serve their purposes. That’s on them. This wasn’t some gaffe on Schiff’s part, and I’m sure we could find many examples of similar summary/parodies by Republicans. It’s a common enough rhetorical device. > > - Quoted from here: [Schiff's 'Parody' and Trump's Response - FactCheck.org](https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/schiffs-parody-and-trumps-response/) Boo THAT’S a transcript (of what Schiff said). Maybe people ought to be reading that… ---
**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, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4009 "2019-11-08T20:18:38Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Every president is elected… Gerald Ford, Line 1. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) was asked at a public forum in Cleveland earlier today which I attended if there were any of his Republican colleagues in the Senate who might, given the evidence now before the public, vote to convict and remove the President from office in a Senate impeachment trial. He said he personally knew of only one who _might_, but said it was just possible, if unlikely, that others might also, if even more damning evidence comes to light. He didn’t sound confident of it, though. ---
**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, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4010 "2019-11-08T20:19:27Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > The [judgement](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/nyregion/trump-charities-new-york.html) included an admission of wrongdoing. So, everything you wrote is irrelevant. He admitted he ran a fraudulent charity. > > “The settlement, which was finalized last month and announced on Thursday in the judge’s order, included a detailed admission of misconduct that is rare for the president, who has long employed a scorched-earth approach toward fighting lawsuits.” I was wondering why I hadn’t noticed this, but apparently this is a brand new development. Anyways, going by the New York Times, I would have to concede the argument. Therefore I looked up the actual case. Contrary to your assertion, and unfortunately contrary to the reporting of the New York Times, Judge Scarpulla takes care to note that Mr. Trump shall pay $2 million as part of the settlement for “_allegedly_ improper use of the Foundation and distribution of the Funds received by the Foundation” (emphasis mine). Perhaps there really was an admission of wrongdoing in the October 1 stipulation, but I could not find a copy of that to read. Judge Scarpulla only references “factual admissions” that the Trump Campaign handled the money instead of the Foundation, but it was eventually disbursed to charities anyways. From what I can tell wrongdoing had not been established as a fact. The index number is 451130-2018 in SCROLL ([http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/](http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/)). It is possible that I am misinterpreting this though, I’m not a lawyer. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4011 "2019-11-08T20:23:57Z")
So if the 2 million dollars is not for wrong doing, then what the hell is it for? ---
**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, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4012 "2019-11-08T20:24:58Z")
> [@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. > > ~Max While I’m \*expressly \*not accusing you of anything whatsoever–let that be clear–I just wanted to make sure you were self-aware of this [trope](http://wondermark.com/1k62/)and [tactic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning), simply for your own edification. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4013 "2019-11-08T20:36:11Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I was wondering why I hadn’t noticed this, but apparently this is a brand new development. Anyways, going by the New York Times, I would have to concede the argument. Therefore I looked up the actual case. > > Contrary to your assertion, and unfortunately contrary to the reporting of the New York Times, Judge Scarpulla takes care to note that Mr. Trump shall pay $2 million as part of the settlement for “_allegedly_ improper use of the Foundation and distribution of the Funds received by the Foundation” (emphasis mine). Perhaps there really was an admission of wrongdoing in the October 1 stipulation, but I could not find a copy of that to read. Judge Scarpulla only references “factual admissions” that the Trump Campaign handled the money instead of the Foundation, but it was eventually disbursed to charities anyways. From what I can tell wrongdoing had not been established as a fact. > > The index number is 451130-2018 in SCROLL ([http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/](http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/)). > > It is possible that I am misinterpreting this though, I’m not a lawyer. > > ~Max Are you reading the [stipulation](https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=JLJih9v_PLUS_EKSuJs36THzexg==&system=prod)? I can’t cut and paste, but read the factual stipulations, including about how he got his foundation to pay $10,000 for a portrait of him, which he had hung at one of his hotels, and then had his hotel pay his foundation $185 for rental fees. Trump stipulates that this is true. Now, Trump is constitutionally incapable (and the lack of capitalization is deliberate) of admitting fault, so he doesn’t admit that this shit is illegal or wrong. But he admits he did it. The question then becomes, “If you admit you did a thing, and if the thing you did is wrong, but you don’t admit the thing you did is wrong, is that an admission of wrongdoing?” But that question is boring as shit. Why would I fret over whether a sociopath like Trump is once again incapable of seeing that shitting the bed is wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Running\_with\_Scissors](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Running\_with\_Scissors](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Running_with_Scissors)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4014 "2019-11-08T20:43:37Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > But that question is boring as shit. Why would I fret over whether a sociopath like Trump is once again incapable of seeing that shitting the bed is wrong? On the other hand, \*pissing \*the bed is perfectly OK, at least if done in Russia. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4015 "2019-11-08T21:20:54Z")
OK so I get why Schiff wants to move forward with the impeachment and not wait for subpoenas of Bolton and other no-shows to work their through the courts, but I don’t understand why are they dropping the cases altogether? To do so basically establishes the Executive branches right to ignore any requests for oversight going forward. Even if the current investigation is going to probably be over by the time they could jump though the final appeal required to get administration officials to show up, continuing the process will get the wheels in motion so that when the next flagrant abuse of power from the administration comes down, the groundwork will be set to force compliance, rather then wait several months starting from scratch. If nothing else it will hopefully stop future administrations from following the Trump model. ---
**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:** [November 8, 2019, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4016 "2019-11-08T21:28:14Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > OK so I get why Schiff wants to move forward with the impeachment and not wait for subpoenas of Bolton and other no-shows to work their through the courts, **but I don’t understand why are they dropping the cases altogether**? To do so basically establishes the Executive branches right to ignore any requests for oversight going forward. Even if the current investigation is going to probably be over by the time they could jump though the final appeal required to get administration officials to show up, continuing the process will get the wheels in motion so that when the next flagrant abuse of power from the administration comes down, the groundwork will be set to force compliance, rather then wait several months starting from scratch. If nothing else it will hopefully stop future administrations from following the Trump model. Because they already have a case filed that’s much further along addressing the identical issue from the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena to Don McGahn. Once they have a ruling on that, it will apply to all these other Trump henchmen who are ignoring subpoenas, and it will be resolved much faster than any new cases filed by the Intelligence Committee. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4017 "2019-11-08T21:34:13Z")
OK thanks, ignorance fought. I feel [DEL]much[/DEL] somewhat better. ---
**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, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4018 "2019-11-08T21:36:32Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > Because they already have a case filed that’s much further along addressing the identical issue from the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena to Don McGahn. Once they have a ruling on that, it will apply to all these other Trump henchmen who are ignoring subpoenas, and it will be resolved much faster than any new cases filed by the Intelligence Committee. [_AP_](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/john-bolton-wont-testify-in-impeachment-probe-anytime-soon-lawyer-suggests-2019-10-31): > [@](#): > > Bolton lawyer Charles Cooper was in federal court Thursday on behalf of another client whose testimony the House also wants. > > That client is former Bolton deputy Charles Kupperman, who wants a federal judge to resolve whether he can be forced to testify since he was a close adviser to Trump. > > Cooper says Bolton could be added to the case. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon says he hopes to issue a ruling by late December. There’s a _Washington Post_ article from yesterday titled: “Charles Kupperman subpoena withdrawn by House as it asks judge to dismiss lawsuit over his testimony” [subscription needed] ---
**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, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4019 "2019-11-08T21:55:37Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > While I’m \*expressly \*not accusing you of anything whatsoever–let that be clear–I just wanted to make sure you were self-aware of this [trope](http://wondermark.com/1k62/)and [tactic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning), simply for your own edification. Having now read about that tactic which you are not accusing me of, which I was unfamiliar with and only heard about in passing on these boards, I have formed an opinion of it that someone who thinks I am “sealioning” probably won’t agree with or appreciate. I don’t know how else to respond except that I’m trying to argue in good faith. ~Max ---
**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:** [November 8, 2019, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4020 "2019-11-08T22:16:00Z")
> [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > [_AP_](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/john-bolton-wont-testify-in-impeachment-probe-anytime-soon-lawyer-suggests-2019-10-31): > There’s a _Washington Post_ article from yesterday titled: “Charles Kupperman subpoena withdrawn by House as it asks judge to dismiss lawsuit over his testimony” [subscription needed] [This case](https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/31/judge-force-testimony-mueller-star-witness-063150) is the one to which I’m referring, before U.S. District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Politico) There is a mention of Kupperman’s case and how the McGahn and Kupperman cases may interact toward the end of the piece. > [@](#): > > Kupperman’s suit is before another District Court judge in Washington, Richard Leon, who held the first hearing in that case in a courtroom just down the hall as the arguments before Jackson were playing out. Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush, is not obliged to follow any decision Jackson issues, but would likely explain any disagreement. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=200) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=202)