# 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:** 205
**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 11, 2019, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4081 "2019-11-11T14:26:18Z")
Hearing sources claim that Vindman wasn’t actually fired, that he’s being reassigned as per standard duty rotation. Post #4073 represents the early developments in this, however since then, his attorney has made the following statement: > [@](#): > > UPDATE: @mikevolkov20, attorney for Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, tells @CBSNews his client “Still has a job - his detail ends in July 2020.” > > @mikevolkov20 says, “Vindman is still detailed to NSC. We are not aware of any changes in his status. Obviously any retaliatory action against LTC Vindman on a day when we honor our military heroes would be reprehensible.” > > > Face The Nation @FaceTheNation ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2019, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4082 "2019-11-11T14:49:50Z")
I don’t see why, in this case, Trump testifying would be such a huge win. For the russia scandal, it mattered, because even though the report uncovered a great deal of corruption (and republicans seem to have forgotten all the people indicted as part of those investigations, and keep saying the whole thing was baseless), it didn’t directly implicate the president, except in trying to obstruct the investigation itself. Mostly because Mueller explicitly avoided going there. So getting trump on the stand, to do what he does best, would have made a big difference. This time, all the testimony is shocking, and the president is already implicated by the call if nothing else. But what’s happened? The GOP have found they can still just claim the sky is green, and trump’s base will even wear t-shirts saying as such. And their defence has changed several times, and is now pretty much “Ok, he did it, so what?” If the call memo hasn’t already disqualified the president, as it should, I don’t see how him A Few Good Men-ing it would actually make much difference. The base will stay with him, and his party will acquit (or whatever the equivalent is in impeachment) ---
**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:** [November 11, 2019, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4083 "2019-11-11T14:57:59Z")
If Trump testifies under oath, it would take about five minutes before he perjured himself about something. Hell, ask him what he had for breakfast and he’ll probably lie; it’s in his bones. ---
**Author:** ![FlikTheBlue](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fliktheblue/32/10972_2.png) [@FlikTheBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlikTheBlue)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2019, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4084 "2019-11-11T15:04:45Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > I don’t see why, in this case, Trump testifying would be such a huge win. > > For the russia scandal, it mattered, because even though the report uncovered a great deal of corruption (and republicans seem to have forgotten all the people indicted as part of those investigations, and keep saying the whole thing was baseless), it didn’t directly implicate the president, except in trying to obstruct the investigation itself. > Mostly because Mueller explicitly avoided going there. > So getting trump on the stand, to do what he does best, would have made a big difference. > > This time, all the testimony is shocking, and the president is already implicated by the call if nothing else. > But what’s happened? The GOP have found they can still just claim the sky is green, and trump’s base will even wear t-shirts saying as such. And their defence has changed several times, and is now pretty much “Ok, he did it, so what?” > If the call memo hasn’t already disqualified the president, as it should, I don’t see how him A Few Good Men-ing it would actually make much difference. The base will stay with him, and his party will acquit (or whatever the equivalent is in impeachment) I think the idea is that if Trump himself were to testify he could be goaded into a full on meltdown on national TV. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2019, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4085 "2019-11-11T15:08:40Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > If Trump testifies under oath, it would take about five minutes before he perjured himself about something. Hell, ask him what he had for breakfast and he’ll probably lie; it’s in his bones. And then what? Impeach him? They’re already going to do that, and the Senate won’t convict. ---
**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:** [November 11, 2019, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4086 "2019-11-11T15:51:17Z")
Fine. They’re already going to be on record as defending all of Trump’s nonsense; let them defend documented perjury too. It only takes a little tipping to get a Democratic senate and president in 2020 … every little bit of free campaign ad material helps. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2019, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4087 "2019-11-11T16:44:10Z")
I still have no idea why they’re (apparently) not going to include family separations and children in cages among their articles of impeachment. I mean, it’s hard to do child abuse wholesale rather than retail, but Trump’s managed it, on an industrial scale. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2019, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4088 "2019-11-11T17:35:56Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I still have no idea why they’re (apparently) not going to include family separations and children in cages among their articles of impeachment. I mean, it’s hard to do child abuse wholesale rather than retail, but Trump’s managed it, on an industrial scale. They can only impeach him once, and they’re going with the easiest case to prove. I’m hoping that if they get Trump on the stand they ask him about the obstruction incidents in the Mueller report but I suspect they’ll play this as straight as they can with the strongest hand they have. ---
**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:** [November 11, 2019, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4089 "2019-11-11T17:41:56Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > They can only impeach him once, and they’re going with the easiest case to prove. I’m hoping that **if they get Trump on the stand** they ask him about the obstruction incidents in the Mueller report but I suspect they’ll play this as straight as they can with the strongest hand they have. The Former President is NEVER NEVER NEVER going to be questioned by anyone in this impeachment proceeding. Never. Not gonna happen. This is not a possibility. And even IF (in the remotest of all possible possibilities) he did get “on the stand,” HE WOULD NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS INTELLIGIBLY anyway. He would lie, deflect, attack, blather, change the subject, call names, or any other of his normal avoidance behaviors. It is pointless to ever expect him to act like a normal human being (or even a rational serial killer) in these circumstances. But, as I said, he will never subject himself to any questioning. ---
**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 11, 2019, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4090 "2019-11-11T17:56:17Z")
At the risk of derailing the discussion … is there a case to be made for letting the GOP call their witnesses? I get that their witnesses are little more than flinging shit against the wall, but I see two possible benefits to allowing them: [ol] [li]It destroys the argument that the inquiry is nothing but a partisan exercise. I mean, I know that argument is bullshit, but to the minimally informed voter it may seem true.[/li][li]It gives the Dems the chance to reveal those witnesses for the distractions they are and make Trump’s “defense” look even stupider than it already is.[/li][/ol] Building a convincing case for impeachment \*despite \*the GOP being allowed to bring in witnesses might have more impact on the voting public (and maybe even on GOP senators) than doing so without those witnesses. Am I nuts? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2019, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4091 "2019-11-11T17:58:11Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > At the risk of derailing the discussion … is there a case to be made for letting the GOP call their witnesses? > > I get that their witnesses are little more than flinging shit against the wall, but I see two possible benefits to allowing them: > > [ol] > [li]It destroys the argument that the inquiry is nothing but a partisan exercise. I mean, I know that argument is bullshit, but to the minimally informed voter it may seem true.[/li][li]It gives the Dems the chance to reveal those witnesses for the distractions they are and make Trump’s “defense” look even stupider than it already is.[/li][/ol] > Building a convincing case for impeachment \*despite \*the GOP being allowed to bring in witnesses might have more impact on the voting public (and maybe even on GOP senators) than doing so without those witnesses. Am I nuts? Not only would it be horribly distracting, but it would also never end before the next election happened. ---
**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 11, 2019, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4092 "2019-11-11T18:04:02Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > At the risk of derailing the discussion … is there a case to be made for letting the GOP call their witnesses? > … IMO it depends on the witnesses. The actual whistleblower? GTFO. The Bidens? Not a chance. This is about what Trump did. The Bidens weren’t involved in that. Republicans have to understand that basic fact. If the Bidens were up to anything illegal, that would have been up to American investigative agencies to handle. This is about what Trump did, have I mentioned that? Republican misdirection is not welcome. ---
**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 11, 2019, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4093 "2019-11-11T18:07:41Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > The Former President is NEVER NEVER NEVER going to be questioned by anyone in this impeachment proceeding. Never. Not gonna happen. This is not a possibility. > > And even IF (in the remotest of all possible possibilities) he did get “on the stand,” HE WOULD NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS INTELLIGIBLY anyway. He would lie, deflect, attack, blather, change the subject, call names, or any other of his normal avoidance behaviors. It is pointless to ever expect him to act like a normal human being (or even a rational serial killer) in these circumstances. But, as I said, he will never subject himself to any questioning. Why is this a reason to not press him to speak to issues? I’m not even getting to whether your read on this is correct. Democracy is not maintained without contest. The justice system has managed for a few hundred years and donald trumps scrambled brain will not bring it down or confuse it or defeat it. If that is actually what you’re saying. ---
**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:** [November 11, 2019, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4094 "2019-11-11T18:12:06Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > They can only impeach him once Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2019, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4095 "2019-11-11T18:18:15Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Hearing sources claim that Vindman wasn’t actually fired, that he’s being reassigned as per standard duty rotation. Post #4073 represents the early developments in this, however since then, his attorney has made the following statement: > > [https://twitter.com/PaulaReidCBS/status/1193710272181100544?s=20](https://twitter.com/PaulaReidCBS/status/1193710272181100544?s=20) I’ve been reading the various witness testimonies. Not in order. I’ve read Yavonovich’s and Fiona Hill’s. I just started Vindman’s this morning. Hill’s testimony was very good. In large part I think this is because she is not employed by any US Government agency - she was selected from a private think tank (Brookings Institute) to serve the government as a Russia expert on the Security Council, but she completed that assignment a few months ago. She was not nearly as deferential as Yavonovitch, who is deeply concerned about losing her livelihood and pension over this incident. She shot down several Republican attempts at Russia/Ukraine equivalency regarding election interference and managed to speak at length about the mechanics of Russian disinformation. She told a story about things that happened when she was at Brooking writing a book on Putin. Her rough draft was hacked and she started to receive unsolicited information from other “experts” on social media platforms. She was insightful and kept coming back to the dangers of Russian interference in 2020. Despite her strong positions, she came off as non-partisan, frequently mentioning that she was appointed on the recommendation of Michael Flynn and KT McFarland. And she proactively denied being the whistleblower, There was a section that made me laugh. At some point DURING her testimony, some details were leaked to CNN. So someone ( probably Gym Jordan ) asked her if she knew the reporter and insinuated that she was responsible. She reminded him that she did not have a phone or any communication device and had the alibi of being in front of the committee all morning. To paraphrase, she said “ Are you suggesting I met him in the bathroom?”. These testimonies are good but they are long and reading them has taken some time. So I’m not optimistic that they will get the exposure they deserve. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2019, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4096 "2019-11-11T18:19:18Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Cite? I’m assuming that was a political/practical statement and not a legal one. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2019, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4097 "2019-11-11T18:32:13Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > At the risk of derailing the discussion … is there a case to be made for letting the GOP call their witnesses? > > I get that their witnesses are little more than flinging shit against the wall, but I see two possible benefits to allowing them: > > [ol] > [li]It destroys the argument that the inquiry is nothing but a partisan exercise. I mean, I know that argument is bullshit, but to the minimally informed voter it may seem true.[/li][li]It gives the Dems the chance to reveal those witnesses for the distractions they are and make Trump’s “defense” look even stupider than it already is.[/li][/ol] > Building a convincing case for impeachment \*despite \*the GOP being allowed to bring in witnesses might have more impact on the voting public (and maybe even on GOP senators) than doing so without those witnesses. Am I nuts? Trump and company are exceptionally good at getting their base to lock onto something simple and focus completely on that. “Lock her up!” “No collusion!” “Witch hunt!” “Fake News!” are all examples. There are no nuanced arguments and there is no real basis to mount a defense for what happened. The only option at this point is to distract and find something, anything, that can be pointed to that they can claim makes this entire process a sham. There are countless examples of just how effective this is. So yes, you are nuts to think letting them get countless opportunities to produce more of these types of things is going to sway anyone that wouldn’t be swayed by a legitimate hearing of the facts. ---
**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 11, 2019, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4098 "2019-11-11T18:33:00Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > IMO it depends on the witnesses. The actual whistleblower? GTFO. The Bidens? Not a chance. This is about what Trump did. The Bidens weren’t involved in that. Republicans have to understand that basic fact. If the Bidens were up to anything illegal, that would have been up to American investigative agencies to handle. This is about what Trump did, have I mentioned that? Republican misdirection is not welcome. Right – it’s about what Trump did. Don’t you think Joe Biden could destroy any questioning that tried to establish him and/or Hunter as legitimate subjects for Trump to investigate? Couldn’t capable cross-examination actually make it \*more \*clear that Trump’s true objective was nothing more than political dirt? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2019, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4099 "2019-11-11T18:45:34Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > Right – it’s about what Trump did. Don’t you think Joe Biden could destroy any questioning that tried to establish him and/or Hunter as legitimate subjects for Trump to investigate? Couldn’t capable cross-examination actually make it \*more \*clear that Trump’s true objective was nothing more than political dirt? If the Republicans are trying to do this to disrupt the proceedings, what makes you think allowing it to happen _won’t_ disrupt the proceedings? There is absolutely NOTHING to be gained by allowing this attempted hijack. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2019, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4100 "2019-11-11T18:50:14Z")
Letting these witnesses be called would be at least something to weigh the benefits of - _if_ the much more relevant witnesses actually appeared. As long as so many other subpoenas are being ignored, it makes the question of whether to allow further ones pretty moot since if I were a House member there’s no way in hell I’d allow them under these circumstances. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=204) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=206)