# 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:** 220
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4381 "2019-11-14T01:39:41Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > Oh, I don’t know. Seems to me Americans are paying pretty close attention. > > The top 5 search terms on Google today all had to do with impeachment. And Trump’s approval rating on FiveThirtyEight swung nearly half a point toward ‘Disapprove’ within hours after the hearings. > > On Day One. If you listened to the testimony on the radio, which I did, it was pretty compelling. The substance of it is hard to ignore. I just think it’ll end up like the Mueller hearings. I think Trump and Trumpism will probably be wounded politically as a result of the hearings but he’ll have enough support to survive. I suspect part of the reticence among the center and center right to favor impeach Trump is just a fundamental desire to have the final say for themselves at the ballot box. For some percentage of the electorate, it’s possible to dislike Trump but dislike the idea that their opportunity to vote for or against him could be taken away from them. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4382 "2019-11-14T01:41:33Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4383 "2019-11-14T01:44:47Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’m not confused. You seem to think that the sixth amendment has anything whatsofuckever to do with this thread. I’m pretty clear on why you make that claim. > > But perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps I am confused. I welcome correction, if my suspicion as to why you made that risible claim is not correct. You _are_ confused. The only place I brought up the 6th amendment was in response to **JohnT** ’s “traffic court” analogy. It was a specific response to his post. You (and many others) are reading into that some broader defense of President Trump that simply isn’t made there. Perhaps it would clarify the matter for you if you could try to to tell me specifically which “risible claim” I made and which post I made it in. ---
**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 14, 2019, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4384 "2019-11-14T02:04:58Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > The Republicans can never claim this, because the so-called president asking another country to investigate a US citizen for him is not justified. I can only speculate as to the justification but I am of the opinion that there are situations where a president is justified in asking another country to investigate a US citizen. Specifically I think it can be justified when the DoJ has an ongoing investigation, based on a reasonable suspicion if not probable cause, and hits a roadblock that requires cooperation with the foreign country’s law enforcement. > [@bobot](#): > > If Trump had any idea that Hunter Biden should be investigated for something, to whom do you suppose he should have taken such a request? I am not assuming that Trump was the origin of the push to investigate Hunter Biden or Burisma. But to answer your question, I suppose he should have taken that request to the Department of Justice. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4385 "2019-11-14T02:06:16Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’ve already answered why I believe the Republicans want to call Ciaramella to testify. See post #4291 and #4322 . Any valid truth seeking reasons? I mean, trying to smear the messenger, when the message is verified, is an utter bullshit distraction tactic not a real reason. ---
**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 14, 2019, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4386 "2019-11-14T02:28:12Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > The Republicans can never claim this, because the so-called president asking another country to investigate a US citizen for him is not justified. If Trump had any idea that Hunter Biden should be investigated for something, to whom do you suppose he should have taken such a request? > [@Max\_S](#): > > I can only speculate as to the justification but I am of the opinion that there are situations where a president is justified in asking another country to investigate a US citizen. Specifically I think it can be justified when the DoJ has an ongoing investigation, based on a reasonable suspicion if not probable cause, and hits a roadblock that requires cooperation with the foreign country’s law enforcement. … But that is not the situation that is relevant here. There is no evidence that Trump was asking “a favor, though” of Zelensky on behalf of an ongoing investigation of the Bidens by the US Department of Justice. If such evidence existed, why would it be kept secret, given that it would exonerate Trump? It’s also not the case that Trump was asking Zelensky for an _investigation_. The evidence suggests that Trump was asking only that an investigation be _announced_: > [@](#): > > There were three words President Donald Trump wanted to hear from the Ukraine president: Investigations, Biden, Clinton. > > That’s according to the transcript, released Thursday, of an impeachment inquiry interview with career State Department official George Kent. > > “Potus wanted nothing less than President Zelenskiy to go to the microphone and say investigations, Biden and Clinton,” Kent testified. “Basically there needed to be three words in the message, and that was the shorthand.” > > Kent told investigators that that was his understanding of what Trump wanted Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to say in order to unlock U.S. military aid … > **[The words Trump had to hear: Investigations, Biden, Clinton](https://apnews.com/article/fb44886cc98248f2a4e623e049fc38de)** > > WASHINGTON (AP) — There were three words President Donald Trump wanted to hear from the Ukraine president: Investigations, Biden, Clinton. It was a fairly clever scheme, actually. If the head of a sovereign nation announced ‘we are investigating [a major political figure]’ that would be above-the-fold, breaking-news headlines for days or even weeks. Every outlet–CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and on and on–would have given it major coverage. No actual “investigating” would have been needed; Joe Biden would have become ‘the guy so dirty another nation had to investigate him’ to millions. Clever scheme. Foiled by a patriotic whistleblower. What a disappointing blow to autocrats! ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4387 "2019-11-14T02:47:44Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > For some percentage of the electorate, it’s possible to dislike Trump but dislike the idea that their opportunity to vote for or against him could be taken away from them. Excellent observation, IMO. ---
**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 14, 2019, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4388 "2019-11-14T03:12:09Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I can only speculate as to the justification but I am of the opinion that there are situations where a president is justified in asking another country to investigate a US citizen. Specifically I think it can be justified when the DoJ has an ongoing investigation, based on a reasonable suspicion if not probable cause, and hits a roadblock that requires cooperation with the foreign country’s law enforcement. > I am not assuming that Trump was the origin of the push to investigate Hunter Biden or Burisma. But to answer your question, I suppose he should have taken that request to the Department of Justice. > > ~Max There is another concern about not following proper channels that I would like to address. This would be a much different situation if Trump had asked Great Britain or Canada to help investigate a private citizen. Depending on the circumstances it might still be wrong, but not nearly as wrong. If you have listened to or read the testimonies of the diplomatic staff, you will find the theme of “Ukraine is not a “rule of law” country” repeated time and again. This is actually important. The Ukrainian legal system does not afford the same protections as the US legal system. One reason investigations are handled jointly under MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty) is to ensure that US citizen receive fair and humane treatment. Otherwise you could be setting up an American citizen to be tortured or even murdered. I have been interested in the mechanics of corruption in the former USSR for a long time now, ever since I read Bill Browder’s book **Red Notice**. After which I read a lot of other books and material on the subject. It’s impossible to convey in a message board post the depth and breadth of corruption in the former USSR, especially to an audience that refuses to get it. But one reason fighting corruption is such a challenge is that if you stripped away the corruption, there would be nothing left. One USSR businessperson claimed she ran for public office because she couldn’t afford not to. If she held that office, that was one less person she had to pay off. And “anti-corruption” efforts are frequently just a changing of the guard in corruption land. But, in general, the pro-Western faction have to at least do a better job of _pretending_ not to be corrupt than the pro-Russians like Guiliani’s clients. Burisma was built on corruption like EVERY SINGLE LARGE COMPANY IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION. Because when the country’s assets were divided up, the big industrial interests went to the guys that were able to steal them. And they are passed from thief to thief during the course of various regime changes and “anti-corruption” campaigns. So a key part of Western anti-corruption efforts include stopping bogus “anti-corruption” investigations by partisan prosecutors. It also includes sometimes overlooking the past offenses of the company’s owners - who are pretty much all dirty - if they keep their noses clean, submit to oversight and run their companies cleanly and adhered to Western standards of corporate governance (This is why the companies loaded up their boards with Americans). It also provides plenty of fuel for gaslighting people that don’t understand the politics of the region. This is why the US has preferred that Ukraine concentrate its anti-corruption efforts on the plenty of open cases where people are currently stealing from the Ukrainian people. The State Dept and NCS officials briefly described a few of those cases in their depositions. ---
**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 14, 2019, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4389 "2019-11-14T03:18:36Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You _are_ confused. The only place I brought up the 6th amendment was in response to **JohnT** ’s “traffic court” analogy. It was a specific response to his post. You (and many others) are reading into that some broader defense of President Trump that simply isn’t made there. > > Perhaps it would clarify the matter for you if you could try to to tell me specifically which “risible claim” I made and which post I made it in. I’m no mindreader, so I won’t speculate on your motives. But your bringing up the sixth amendment in a context very similar to the risible way other Republicans have brought it up, and then claiming you were talking about something entirely different and completely trifling, is successfully derailing the thread once more. I’ll stop responding to the derailment, now that it’s clear you’re unwilling to back that particular talking point, and hope that others will, in order to keep this specific thread derailment from continuing. ---
**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 14, 2019, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4390 "2019-11-14T03:22:08Z")
[Eric Trump](https://twitter.com/EricTrump/status/1194660527856902144): > [@](#): > > This is horribly boring… #Snoozefest ---
**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 14, 2019, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4391 "2019-11-14T03:26:56Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I “raised the 6th Amendment” in reply to this post by **JohnT** and it was meant as a reply to that post, which is why I quoted it: > > If that’s not clear to you, I’m pretty sure the issue isn’t on my end. So you raise some manufactured reasons why someone needs to testify in an impeachment proceeding, someone calls out your manufactured reasons using an analogy, you respond with something about the 6th Amendment; and you blame someone else for raising the issue of someone being called to testify in the impeachment trial - an issue that YOU raised in the first place. Then, you basically call me stupid because you can’t keep a coherent line of argument on the whistleblower. Nice. If anything, this shows how little Republicans have in the way of substance on this topic. It all boils down to “you can’t make me oppose Trump” and character attacks. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4392 "2019-11-14T03:28:24Z")
Regarding Ann Hedonia’s post: That’s pretty important. By delving into how totally not unreasonable it is for Trump to ask for investigations for specific individuals, you are defending a form of corruption Max S. It’s not an anti corruption probe if you are only asking to investigate your opponents. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4393 "2019-11-14T03:36:00Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > Excellent observation, IMO. I hadn’t realized that I had become…elucidator. There’s only one elucidator. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4394 "2019-11-14T03:38:25Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4395 "2019-11-14T04:00:50Z")
I watched Tucker Carlson’s take on Day One, what the heck. His guests were Stephanie Grisham (who I’ve never seen, she never gives press conferences AFAIK) and a GOP congressperson from Ohio. Nobody, not once, made any reference to the substance of the impeachment inquiry. Tucker’s assertion is that the Dems are “making it up as they go”, and that the whole thing is actually about a policy difference between Trump and The Establishment, namely that Trump would like to get along with Russia (who is No Threat To America!) while The Establishment is stuck in 1977. Again, not one reference to the substance of the impeachment inquiry. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4396 "2019-11-14T04:08:14Z")
> [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > [Eric Trump](https://twitter.com/EricTrump/status/1194660527856902144): Yep. That’s the latest party line. And look who came to the thread to tell us he is interested in spewing such nonsense… > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > My recollection was that I decided to take a break from the thread for a while. Now that it’s mildly interesting again, I’m back. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That bumbling, boring testimony? I suspect a relatively few people watched it, and virtually no one was swayed by it. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4397 "2019-11-14T04:15:12Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m not asking for his home address, but the right to face one’s accuser is a hallmark of our criminal justice system, and so I’d hope the judge would tell me the full name of the officer who pulled me over. I’d encourage you to go read the 6th Amendment, k, thx, bye! In a trial, yes. This isnt a\* trial\*. It’s a pre-indictment _hearing_. Generally, the People lays out evidence that will allow the Jury to return a indictment. The Defense is not generally allowed to cross examine the witnesses or bring in exculpatory evidence. The witnesses need not be present in person. When it gets to the Senate, if Mitch allows a trial, _then_ the defense may cross examine any witnesses. The Senate does the Trial, the House the hearing/ Indictment. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4398 "2019-11-14T04:17:03Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > That’s laughably wrong. You do realize that the anonymous tip is a staple in law enforcement and governments at all levels actively encourage and solicit anonymous tips. > [Submit A Tip – Crime Stoppers USA 1-800-222-TIPS](https://www.crimestoppersusa.org/contact/submit-a-tip/)… No he is correct, When it gets to the _trial_ stage, all witnesses must be available for cross examination. A _anonymous tip_ can be \*probable cause \*but it cant be used during the actual trial. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4399 "2019-11-14T04:27:35Z")
Does anyone know if Democratic senators gain greater discovery powers during the Senate phase of the impeachment? Can they submit and discovery request for the actual transcript of the call and have it produced? Actually get Mick to testify? Giuliani? If Giuliani claims some bogus AC privilege, can John Roberts say, “Bullshit” and make him answer? ---
**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 14, 2019, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4400 "2019-11-14T04:46:09Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Until this point, I was pretty sure you and I were in agreement that **JohnT** ’s “traffic court” analogy was stupid and wrong. That’s what my “invocation of the sixth amendment” was in regard to. You seemed to recognize this when you said: > > I’m clear that the impeachment inquiry isn’t a criminal proceeding and many of the protections we normally grant to a defendant, such as the right to confront one’s accusers, and protections from hearsay, etc, don’t apply here. I have NOT made the claim that President Trump has a 6th Amendment right to confront Ciaramella. Is that where your confusion is? So in the scenario I outlined in which a punk drops a dime on on a rival, you, as the DA, would fell it’s your duty to tell the drug dealer “Oh, by the way, just so you know, it was Jimmy the fink who ratted you out.”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=219) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=221)