# 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:** 202
**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, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4021 "2019-11-08T22:17:01Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > 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?” Somehow, even though I was looking at the court page, I missed the stipulation itself. Not sure how that happened. There are definitely admissions of wrongdoing, like where the board was supposed to meet at least once a year and they admitted that hadn’t happened for multiple years. The admission you mention is for self-dealing; as I understand it, buying the portrait was fine (it was sold to the Trump Foundation during a charity auction), but renting it to his private hotel was a breach of fiduciary duty. He also breached his fiduciary duty by allowing his political campaign to run a fundraiser event for the Foundation, which is political self-dealing (even if the money did all go to charities as advertised). Mr. Trump also used Foundation funds to make a $100,000 charitable contribution that a Florida court ordered _him_ to make personally, although ten years later he reimbursed the Foundation with interest. (Effectively that’s a self-dealing loan, I guess). So yeah, totally wrong there, lots of admissions of wrongdoing. ~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:** [November 8, 2019, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4022 "2019-11-08T22:22:31Z")
Do you think that is behavior that is appropriate for a president? ---
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4023 "2019-11-08T22:22:39Z")
There’s a letter from Bolton and Kupperman’s solicitor to the General Counsel of the House of Representatives attached to this tweet from [Yamiche Alcindor](https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1192867024877211649), _PBS_: > [@](#): > > Attorney for John Bolton and Charles Kupperman says in letter that House Chairs leading impeachment inquiry are wrong to say Kupperman’s lawsuit is intended “to delay or otherwise obstruct the Committees’ vital investigatory work.” It says that the House Chairs consider that potential testimonies of Kupperman and Bolton should be “guided by the decision in [the] _McGahn_ [case]”. However, “the House Chairs are mistaken”, the Bolton/Kupperman solicitor argues. Despite House Democrats withdrawing the subpoena for Kupperman, the case [is continuing](https://www.theepochtimes.com/house-democrats-withdraw-subpoena-for-white-house-official-who-asked-judge-to-weigh-in_3139895.html): > [@](#): > > Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a President George W. Bush appointee, told the parties late Wednesday that the case will not be dismissed, stating only Kupperman can do so. > > “Considering that the House and the Department of Justice have already researched and briefed these issues, the Court sees no reason why we cannot continue on the course that’s been set,” Leon 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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4024 "2019-11-08T22:30:07Z")
> [@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] As **Aspenglow** mentioned, it looks like the House wants to consolidate everything into McGahn’s case. From the WaPo article you mentioned, “Instead, the House said that in the interest of speed, it would look to the outcome of another case that is further along in judicial proceedings — that involving a subpoena to former White House counsel Donald McGahn.” I am surprised the House didn’t ask for a stay pending resolution of the McGahn case, instead of withdrawing all the subpoenas. Even I think absolute immunity as advocated by Burnham (DOJ lawyer in McGahn case) is too strong. How can he square that theory with _U.S. v Nixon_? I hope he has a backup defense, but I can’t think of one. ~Max ---
**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, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4025 "2019-11-08T22:31:09Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > Do you think that is behavior that is appropriate for a president? No, I do not. ~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, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4026 "2019-11-08T22:34:00Z")
> [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > There’s a letter from Bolton and Kupperman’s solicitor to the General Counsel of the House of Representatives attached to this tweet from [Yamiche Alcindor](https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1192867024877211649), _PBS_: > > It says that the House Chairs consider that potential testimonies of Kupperman and Bolton should be “guided by the decision in [the] _McGahn_ [case]”. However, “the House Chairs are mistaken”, the Bolton/Kupperman solicitor argues. > > Despite House Democrats withdrawing the subpoena for Kupperman, the case [is continuing](https://www.theepochtimes.com/house-democrats-withdraw-subpoena-for-white-house-official-who-asked-judge-to-weigh-in_3139895.html): It’s hard not to read between the lines of what you have shared. Leon may intend to rule in a different way than Brown Jackson. Which is scary, because his ruling would be the first one to attach some authority to the absolute immunity bullshit – in complete contrast to the checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution. Such a disagreement would surely be taken up by SCOTUS. I hope I’m wrong and Leon chooses only to buttress Brown Jackson’s ruling. And I hope impeachment proceedings go ahead either way without testimony of either Kupperman or Bolton. Neither is needed. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4027 "2019-11-08T22:36:11Z")
Anyone have any idea when we’ll get a ruling on whatever case will get Bolton yapping? Is the law clear on this or is there a good chance Bolton et al will be gagged? ---
**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, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4028 "2019-11-08T22:47:49Z")
I hope the Dems are smart enough to not put Bolton in the public eye. He’s a hawk, hawk, hawk, and he will find a way to fuck the Dems’ impeachment efforts. The fact that he’s doing a public strip tease to get them to bring him in makes me even more leery of his testimony. ---
**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, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4029 "2019-11-08T22:55:44Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > Leon may intend to rule in a different way than Brown Jackson. Which is scary, because his ruling would be the first one to attach some authority to the absolute immunity bullshit – in complete contrast to the checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution. Such a disagreement would surely be taken up by SCOTUS. > > I hope I’m wrong and Leon chooses only to buttress Brown Jackson’s ruling. Say December comes and the House has the articles of impeachment drafted and scheduled for a vote. One article is for obstruction of justice based in part on the administration’s refusal to comply with subpoenas. Two contradictory opinions come out of the courts regarding the executive privilege / absolute immunity. Do we have any precedents where the Supreme Court will expedite something before the election season officially begins? I really don’t want the impeachment stalling over this until just before election day next year, and then suddenly the Supreme Court hands down a ruling. You thought Jim Comey’s last minute “announcement” was something, a court ruling on an impeachment-related case in the weeks/months before election day would be 1000x worse. ~Max ---
**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:** [November 8, 2019, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4030 "2019-11-08T23:15:59Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > I hope the Dems are smart enough to not put Bolton in the public eye. He’s a hawk, hawk, hawk, and he will find a way to fuck the Dems’ impeachment efforts. The fact that he’s doing a public strip tease to get them to bring him in makes me even more leery of his testimony. In fairness to Bolton, he’s also doing that public strip tease in order to sell more books: > [@](#): > > … It also remains to be seen how soon Bolton’s new book will come out, but when [Axios reporter Jonathan] Swan appeared on MSNBC’s “First Look” on Friday morning, he predicted that it would most likely come out sometime before the 2020 election. And Swan also said that Bolton, unlike former Defense Secretary James Mattis, would be likely to openly criticize the Trump Administration in his book. … > **[How John Bolton's new book deal could be very bad news for Trump](https://www.alternet.org/2019/10/how-john-boltons-new-book-deal-could-be-very-bad-news-for-trump)** > > In September, former National Security Adviser John Bolton became the latest person to leave the Trump Administration on bad terms with the president — and according to a report by Axios’ Jonathan Swan, Bolton’s months in the White House will be the... But, yes. House Democrats should not let Bolton testify publicly. Mindful of those book sales, again, he is highly likely to throw bombs that would enhance the Trump-defense strategy of chaos creation. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4031 "2019-11-08T23:20:40Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > I hope the Dems are smart enough to not put Bolton in the public eye. He’s a hawk, hawk, hawk, and he will find a way to fuck the Dems’ impeachment efforts. The fact that he’s doing a public strip tease to get them to bring him in makes me even more leery of his testimony. I think Bolton will produce (like his lawyers are hinting). He’s supposedly one to hold a grudge and also supposedly has a high degree of integrity (I’m sure I’ll get shit for that - just read it a couple times from decent sources). Republicans will still be in power if Trump gets ousted. ---
**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, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4032 "2019-11-08T23:26:49Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Of course, the actual response is much better: a shrug, an added charge, and a statement telling Bolton, Kupperman, et al, it’s too late: > > Democrats’ new moves show House could wrap up impeachment by Christmas > > [https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/democrat-impeachment-timeline/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/democrat-impeachment-timeline/index.html) > > “Naw, we good bro. We don’t need John Bolton. Y’all sit over there now and be quiet.” > [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > John Bolton is a tease. > > [Amy Fiscus](https://twitter.com/amyfiscus/status/1192883050390134784), _NYT_: > > ETA: Or his lawyer is. > [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > Anyone have any idea when we’ll get a ruling on whatever case will get Bolton yapping? Is the law clear on this or is there a good chance Bolton et al will be gagged? I think the House is playing this one perfectly as far as Bolton is concerned. They strung him out as long as it took to get others to testify to what Bolton was going to testify, dumped him, and now Bolton is jumping up and down, nearly demanding to be heard. “I got something you wanna kno-o-ow, nyah nyah”, indeed. Schiff’s response _ought_ to be “save it for the book tour” and I, for one, am glad it is. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4033 "2019-11-08T23:56:42Z")
We are using the fact that the president has now admitted to illegally taking funds that he had claimed would go to veterans and using it for himself as evidence that the man is likely to have lied about impeachable stuff. How about we discuss that a president who admits to illegally taking funds that he had claimed would to to veterans and using it for himself should, in and of itself, should get impeached? ---
**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, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4034 "2019-11-08T23:58:49Z")
Fine with me. And as for the rest of the chucklefucks, since when is disobeying a subpoena a-ok with everyone?? ---
**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, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4035 "2019-11-08T23:59:18Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > 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. Aren’t they the ones who are always screaming about obeying the constitution? It’s literally in the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2019, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4036 "2019-11-09T00:25:45Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Aren’t they the ones who are always screaming about obeying the constitution? It’s literally in the constitution. They believe in the constitution in the same way they believe in the bible, selectively and only when it’s in their favor. ---
**Author:** ![dgrdfd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/eb8c5e/32.png) [@dgrdfd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dgrdfd)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2019, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4037 "2019-11-09T00:54:01Z")
Why do you guys continue to engage a propaganda agent? ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2019, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4038 "2019-11-09T01:57:22Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Say December comes and the House has the articles of impeachment drafted and scheduled for a vote. One article is for obstruction of justice based in part on the administration’s refusal to comply with subpoenas. Two contradictory opinions come out of the courts regarding the executive privilege / absolute immunity. Do we have any precedents where the Supreme Court will expedite something before the election season officially begins? The Court can move quickly when the Court sees a need to. The most relevant example possible – [United States v. Nixon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon) in 1974. The Supreme Court got the case on July 8, and delivered its ruling on July 24. [Clinton v. Jones](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/681/) didn’t go to the Supreme Court during an election year, but it was argued in January 1997 and the decision was handed down in May. ---
**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 9, 2019, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4039 "2019-11-09T04:46:03Z")
[Maggie Haberman](https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1193022915958255619), _NYT_: > [@](#): > > Mulvaney lawyer William Pittard files to join existing kupperman lawsuit over whether to comply with House efforts to seek testimony. ---
**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 9, 2019, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4040 "2019-11-09T15:41:33Z")
[Rachael Bade](https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/1193174869980176384), _Washington Post_: > [@](#): > > HIll GOP just released its desires witness list for impeachment hearings, which includes — wait for it — Nellie Ohr, Hunter Biden, another Burisma board member as well as Alexandra Chalupa. > > They also want the whistleblower, plus Kurt Volker and Tim Morrison [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=201) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=203)