# 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:** 217
**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:** [November 13, 2019, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4321 "2019-11-13T22:36:46Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think learning the whistleblower’s identity can provide us with useful information about their political motivations, biases, background, and history. Just think of all the relevant things we could learn if Trump, Mulvaney, Giuliani, Pompeo, and others in the administration were to testify! We’d learn so much! I assume you’re equally eager for that to happen? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2019, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4322 "2019-11-13T22:38:36Z")
> [@Grrr](#): > > If all this really meant anything to you, you would have been swayed by Taylor’s and Kent’s testimony today. > > IDK what one has to do to be more credible than those two. That bumbling, boring testimony? I suspect a relatively few people watched it, and virtually no one was swayed by it. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2019, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4323 "2019-11-13T22:44:33Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Once there is a confession, and other evidence of the crime, the prosecution can go forward without the guy who made the first phone call. Trump (and his team) can face all the accusers who are testifying against him. That’s all that due process requires. (and even that isn’t required in an impeachment proceeding). And, as stated repeatedly, there is no reason to question the whistleblower if you’re admitting the allegations. The only question is whether such conduct merits removal from office. I think it clearly does. Some Republicans will probably disagree (or at least pretend to). I agree with you that the impeachment process, being inherently political and not criminal in nature, does not “require” affording the accused a chance to confront the witnesses against them. As I told Ravenman, the Republicans’ interest in having him testify seems to be primarily in understanding his collusion with Schiff’s staff and his previous political activities, not in having him re-hash the hearsay from his complaint. I’m more fascinated by the polite fiction so many Dopers are apparently happily playing along with that the whistleblower is still “anonymous”. His name has been widely reported in the media. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2019, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4324 "2019-11-13T22:47:03Z")
The whistleblower’s testimony is and would be irrelevant, when so many other sources have confirmed the information in their report. Trump can face his accusers (Congress) anytime he wants. The WB isn’t his accuser – they’re a witness who reported information to the authorities. If I see a guy get assaulted, and report it to the police, and it turns out the police find video footage of the assault that clearly identifies the attacker, my testimony would be irrelevant. And the defendant would have full ability and rights to face his “accuser” (i.e. the local authorities) in court. This is not a serious argument. ---
**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:** [November 13, 2019, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4325 "2019-11-13T22:47:08Z")
And you believe the fake news media? ---
**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 13, 2019, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4326 "2019-11-13T22:47:11Z")
The Republicans are represented in this investigation, and purposely so, by a man who allowed people to get molested, and a man suing an internet cow for hundreds of millions of dollars. ---
**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:** [November 13, 2019, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4327 "2019-11-13T22:48:09Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I agree with you that the impeachment process, being inherently political and not criminal in nature, does not “require” affording the accused a chance to confront the witnesses against them. As I told Ravenman, the Republicans’ interest in having him testify seems to be primarily in understanding his collusion with Schiff’s staff and his previous political activities, not in having him re-hash the hearsay from his complaint. I’m more fascinated by the polite fiction so many Dopers are apparently happily playing along with that the whistleblower is still “anonymous”. His name has been widely reported in the media. What criminal proceedings afford the accused the right to confront the accuser before the trial begins? ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2019, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4328 "2019-11-13T22:50:58Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That bumbling, boring testimony? I suspect a relatively few people watched it, and virtually no one was swayed by it. What parts were “bumbling”? Be specific. And what does the fact few people watched it have to do with his credibility? Again: Do you think BT is credible? If not; why? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2019, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4329 "2019-11-13T22:55:51Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Who cares who the whistleblower is (except those interested in punishing anyone who opposes Trump)? Everything relevant they said was confirmed by other sources and witnesses. Even if they “colluded” with the Democrats (what does that even mean? Is cooperation “collusion”?), the WB report was factual, according to the other witnesses and sources. Government employees should be encouraged to come forward with facts they find disturbing, not discouraged. Outing the WB discourages future WBs. \ “This so-called “witness” clearly colluded with the police when he cooperated with them to give them information about my client. We demand that you tell us where this witness lives, so we can give him a good strong interview.” \ “No, I don’t think we will do that” ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2019, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4330 "2019-11-13T22:59:23Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > \ > > “This so-called “witness” clearly colluded with the police when he cooperated with them to give them information about my client. We demand that you tell us where this witness lives, so we can give him a good strong interview.” > > \ “No, I don’t think we will do that” That’s exactly it. There’s no legitimate purpose to publicly identifying the WB. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2019, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4331 "2019-11-13T23:00:35Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > His name has been widely reported in the Trumpist > [@](#): > > media. FTFY. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2019, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4332 "2019-11-13T23:01:06Z")
> [@Grrr](#): > > What parts were “bumbling”? Be specific. And what does the fact few people watched it have to do with his credibility? It’s just parroting the latest try at GOP spin: “The TV show of the impeachment got very bad ratings. Not very entertaining at all. Sad.” ---
**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 13, 2019, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4333 "2019-11-13T23:01:10Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That bumbling, boring testimony? New impeachment defense strategy: “It’s boring!” ---
**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:** [November 13, 2019, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4334 "2019-11-13T23:07:50Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m more fascinated by the polite fiction so many Dopers are apparently happily playing along with that the whistleblower is still “anonymous”. His name has been widely reported in the media. I believe it’s still speculation. But I’m not going to a bunch of right wing sites to see what _evidence_ they’re putting out. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2019, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4335 "2019-11-13T23:10:12Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > _evidence_ Translation: bull and/or shit. 😉 ---
**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 13, 2019, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4336 "2019-11-13T23:12:01Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > That other stuff just looks like Democrats complaining that Russia helped Trump catch Hillary and the DNC with it’s hand in the cookie jar. The focus is correctly directed at the DNC shenanigans and not who uncovered them. Sounds like the nonsense that Bernie Bros spewed and still like to pedal. The fact is that Russia and Trump coordinated these things and the items that were released were selectively chosen. There was no cookie jar. The fact that people still say things like what you just posted shows just how valuable that information was and why team Trump took the steps to get as much of it as they could. The story that our president is beholden to a foreign entity because of their help which might very well have gotten him elected to begin with is kind of a big deal. Especially since it didn’t happen in a vacuum. Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2019, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4337 "2019-11-13T23:14:37Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > I believe it’s still speculation. But I’m not going to a bunch of right wing sites to see what _evidence_ they’re putting out. You’re obviously under no obligation to go to any site you don’t want to, but just a reminder, you’re the one that asked: > [@Procrustus](#): > > Do we have _any_ evidence that would meet _any_ standard to establish who the whistle blower is? I don’t visit Brietbart’s web site, so maybe I missed it. Apparently it’s a lot more than just Breitbart’s website that you don’t visit. That’s fine, you’re free to live in a left-wing news bubble if you like, I’ll just do my best to remember that the next time you ask “Do we have _any_ evidence …”, you’re really only interested in hearing about evidence from left-wing sources. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2019, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4338 "2019-11-13T23:19:19Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think learning the whistleblower’s identity can provide us with useful information about their political motivations, biases, background, and history. Again, does the whistleblower know something important or not? Trumpists can’t get their story straight. “He knows nothing so we need to ask him questions!” ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2019, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4339 "2019-11-13T23:20:16Z")
> [@Grrr](#): > > What parts were “bumbling”? Be specific. … The repeated requests to repeat the question, the numerous times he said some variation of “I don’t know”. > [@Grrr](#): > > And what does the fact few people watched it have to do with his credibility? > > Again: Do you think BT is credible? If not; why? I don’t think “credible” is a very good measure for anything. This reminds me of the Kavanaugh hearing: “he’s been _credibly_ accused …”. As it was in that case, the “credibility” of the witness is an entirely subjective matter. The bottom line is your side needs to convince 20 Republican Senators to vote to convict, and I don’t think the testimony today made any significant headway towards that goal. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2019, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4340 "2019-11-13T23:22:16Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The bottom line is your side needs to convince 20 Republican Senators to vote to convict, and I don’t think the testimony today made any significant headway towards that goal. Videotape of Trump shooting someone on Fifth Avenue wouldn’t make any significant headway among Republicans. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=216) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=218)