# 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:** 223
**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 14, 2019, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4441 "2019-11-14T15:16:32Z")
Please, everyone, [_Gym_ Jordan](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/referee-says-he-told-rep-jim-jordan-ohio-state-doctor-n1078476). ---
**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 14, 2019, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4442 "2019-11-14T15:21:14Z")
Just waiting for someone to troll Mr Jordan by pointing out that when you are in authority and someone comes to you to report wrongdoing, it is your responsibility to take it seriously and investigate it. ---
**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, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4443 "2019-11-14T15:27:47Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Just waiting for someone to troll Mr Jordan by pointing out that when you are in authority and someone comes to you to report wrongdoing, it is your responsibility to take it seriously and investigate it. The victim in his case could have been a Democrat, so its different. We will never know until the victim testifies in public. ---
**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, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4444 "2019-11-14T15:35:59Z")
> [@Running\_with\_Scissors](#): > > The sixth amendment does not apply for at least two reasons: Yeah well Trump keeps saying it does and so his supporters are somehow obligated to promote it. That’s just how it works. Also, tax cuts pay for themselves and climate change is a hoax. Anyone who says otherwise is a liberal, and once someone is labeled a liberal that is all that matters. Facts lose relevance because… well I don’t know _why_, I can only report the observation. ---
**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, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4445 "2019-11-14T15:51:35Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > If this is true then the OMB “hold” is irrelevant, as is all this business with the 7/25 phone call. President Trump was failing to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed” over a year ago, sometime around the end of October 2018, right? Okay, now I’ve had a few hours of shuteye and can properly address this. The apportionment process is covered by the Anti-Deficiency Act and the Impoundment Control Act. The former has the thirty-day requirement, although I believe that was met for the first $125 million. After the Secretary of Defense certified Ukraine in May, the President needed to apportion the second $125 million and that’s where the problem comes in. It took him over 100 days where normally it only takes 30, so I’m saying that’s a deferral under the Impoundment Control Act. But the statutory procedures when deferring appropriated funds were not followed, and there lies the problem. I’ll put details and cites in this spoiler. [SPOILER]Of relevance is 31 U.S.C. § 1513 (b) which specifically says the President is personally responsible for making the apportionment by the later of “20 days before the beginning of the fiscal year for which the appropriation is available” or “30 days after the date of enactment of the law by which the appropriation is made available.” The President has chosen to delegate this responsibility to the Office of Management and Budget, but if they mess up, especially on his orders, it’s on him. The point of bringing this up is that the apportionment process is a quick one. By statute it must be achievable within thirty days of the apportionment law’s passage. In this case, the _appropriation_ law was signed on September 28, 2018. Presumably the funds were apportioned (divided according to a plan, not necessarily expended) within the above time frame. Now, it just so happens that the _authorization_ law from August 13, 2018 conditioned some $125 million on the certification process. That didn’t happen until May of 2019, so presumably the initial apportionment over fiscal year 2019 only accounted for $125 million. This is supported by John Rood’s letter of certification [which you can read at NPR](https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6430088-Pentagon-Letter-On-Ukraine-Aid). In that May document Mr. Rood informs Congress that the Department of Defense will start spending the other $125 million “no sooner than 15 days” later. The funds were not spent at all until September 11. Technically September 11 is “no sooner than 15 days” after the end of May. It’s at least 103 days, which is more than 15. The problem is that a 103 day delay is most definitely a deferral of budget authority as defined by the Impoundment Control Act, 2 U.S.C. § 682 (1). That Act differentiates between two kinds of impoundment the President may effect, deferral (defined in § 682 as “withholding or delaying the […] expenditure of budget authority”) and rescission (described in § 683 as basically not spending all of the appropriated funds by the end of the fiscal year). Rescissions require the President to ask Congress for approval, and this ask is automatically denied if Congress does not reply within 45 days (§ 683). The current case has a 103 day delay, so if it was in fact a rescission then the President still violated the law. Deferrals _also_ require Congressional approval although a [2012 CRS report](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42633) seems to imply that the President can defer expenditure of appropriated funds for up to 45 days pending the resolution of a rescission request. Notably, § 682 says deferrals may not extend past the end of the fiscal year (that would be a rescission). So holding funds up in the apportionment process for 103 days can’t be business as normal, which would be within thirty days at most. It can’t be a rescission because the funds were ultimately apportioned and released before the end of the fiscal year - even if it was, that is equally bad for the President. Therefore it must be a deferral, but the proper procedures were not met, and the president directed his officers to violate the law.[/SPOILER] > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > And while we’re on the subject of presidents failing to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed”, I’d like to ask you your thoughts about Obama withholding weapons from Ukraine in spite of Congressional authorization. The FY2016 NDAA authorized lethal aid for Ukraine (SEC. 1250(b)(2)) > > [PolitiFact writes](https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2019/oct/25/matt-gaetz/matt-gaetz-says-obama-permanently-stopped-military/): > > > [@](#): > > > > The 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, which became law in November 2015, called for “lethal assistance such as anti-armor weapon systems, mortars, crew-served weapons and ammunition, grenade launchers and ammunition, and small arms and ammunition.” > > > > The legislation also called for counter-artillery radars, unmanned aerial tactical surveillance systems and other equipment. > > > > But experts told us that the equipment ultimately provided during Obama’s tenure was non-lethal aid. > > > > “The first lethal deliveries came from Trump,” said Jim Townsend, deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO Policy during the Obama administration. > > It appears to me that Obama violated the law and the Constitution by failing to send Ukraine lethal aid in 2016. Do you think Obama should have been impeached for that violation? Certainly, if the Obama administration violated the law (and were still in office) I would support impeachment. I don’t think that’s a given, though. The NDAA FY2016 has a provision you may have overlooked, 1250(b)(3), that conditions that lethal military aid on certification from the Secretary of Defense in coordination with the Secretary of State. It actually says the funds earmarked for lethal aid can be used for non-lethal aid if the Secretary certifies that it is not in our national security interest to provide lethal aid. _PoliFact_’s Russia expert cites concern about lethal aid escalating the situation as grounds for not sending it. If their reporting is accurate, I would be surprised to learn that the Obama administration repurposed those funds for non-lethal aid without sending the letter as required by statute and ostensibly justified by the circumstances. I could not find a copy of the letter online but if you suspect wrongdoing I recommend contacting your representative or filing a FOIA request. ~Max ---
**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 14, 2019, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4446 "2019-11-14T15:57:38Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Yeah well Trump keeps saying it does and so his supporters are somehow obligated to promote it. That’s just how it works. > > Also, tax cuts pay for themselves and climate change is a hoax. Anyone who says otherwise is a liberal, and once someone is labeled a liberal that is all that matters. Facts lose relevance because… well I don’t know _why_, I can only report the observation. And anyone who is a liberal is really a socialist. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4447 "2019-11-14T15:59:36Z")
> [@BeepKillBeep](#): > > You are a part of the problem with what’s wrong with America today. And it is sad because I don’t think your dumb, or ill-informed (misinformed perhaps), or in a cult-like daze, like so many of Trump’s supporters. But look, Trump is a very bad person. Trump is also a very bad president. Trump is an obvious conman. Trump is an obvious criminal (sufficient for proof in court, perhaps not, but sufficient for a reasonably intelligent person to put 2 and 2 together to get criminal, oh heck yeah). It is obvious that Trump is using the office for his personal gain, and the gain of the Trump organization. Maybe Democrats and their policies are awful for the country. Maybe the Republicans are great. But none of that matters because Trump isn’t any of that. Trump is a criminal conman that is wrecking the democratic foundations and rule of law of YOUR country. A country that I legitimately think you love (I can tell by your posts, I may disagree with you, but I can tell that you want the policies that are best for the USA). Trump isn’t any of that. Trump is the swamp that he claims he’s going to drain. You do the USA no favors by continuing to carry water for Trump and sinking deeper into the muck with the Republican party. In my view, the best thing you could do is try to help the Republican party pull itself out of the Trump swamp. > > Not that I think any of this will matter to you so carry on. It’s tangent to the discussion but you’ve got **HD** and those like him all wrong. They do\* not\* care or love their country beyond what the country can do for their own self interests. They care only only about: unrestricted 2ndA rights, strictly limiting immigration, dramatically reducing taxes, eliminating regulations. That’s it. That is the sum total what what they care about. They do not care how vile, corrupt or incompetent the president/party/government is, as long as it delivers on their hearts’ desires without obligation to give back to the society in which they would thrive. ---
**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, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4448 "2019-11-14T16:26:48Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t know where the scenario you outlined is, but given the description here in the post I’m quoting, no, I don’t think I’d feel it was my duty to tell the drug dealer who ratted them out. Here was the scenario I was talking about. > [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > If a some punk calls the cops to let them know about a drug shipment coming in, and the Feds find 50 kilos of cocaine, does the cocaine disappear just because the punk was working for a rival dealer?. As to your response, why not? Shouldn’t the accused have the right to confront his accuser? I don’t see any real difference between this and whats going on with the Ukraine investigation. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4449 "2019-11-14T16:31:28Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Here was the scenario I was talking about. > > As to your response, why not? Shouldn’t the accused have the right to confront his accuser? I don’t see any real difference between this and whats going on with the Ukraine investigation. The problem is in the definition of “accuser”. In this snitch/drug deal scenario, the accuser isn’t the snitch – it’s the DA and the police and the K9 unit that worked on the tip and found the drugs. Once they pried the lid off the crate of cocaine, the snitch was irrelevant (assuming they got a valid search warrant.) ---
**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, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4450 "2019-11-14T16:35:57Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > Please lead me by the nose and explicitly tell my why you think this matters at all. It was correcting a misunderstanding that **Sage Rat** had. See post #4411. ---
**Author:** ![rock\_party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e19b73/32.png) [@rock\_party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rock_party)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4451 "2019-11-14T16:36:37Z")
Look, the ONLY reason the Republicans want to hear from the WB is for the public besmirching they can pound on, ruin the WB’s reputation, all to sway public opinion. They know what Trump and his minions did was illegal and wrong and Trump deserves to be impeached, but they also know they’re not going to do it. If they can sway public opinion in any shape or form, they will. Just so when they vote against what’s just and right in the Senate and exonerate Trump, there won’t be as much blowback. ---
**Author:** ![MulderMuffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldermuffin/32/2862_2.png) [@MulderMuffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MulderMuffin)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4452 "2019-11-14T16:37:22Z")
I watched the impeachment hearing on Wednesday. It made me almost wish that it _was_ a trial, so that someone could jump up and shout “Objection! Relevance!” every time someone invoked Hunter Biden’s competence, or the whistleblower, or Russia, or Mueller, or whatever conspiracy theory _du jour_ they were hammering on about. I did it often enough and loud enough that now my dog thinks her name is “Objection” and she’s looking all over for “Relevance” so she can retrieve it for me. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4453 "2019-11-14T16:39:07Z")
I ask this in all honesty, and just a simple question. I won’t even argue against the answer, because I just want to understand the thought process. What difference does the whistlelblower’s intentions or motivations make? For the sake of argument, let’s say that this whistleblower is a card carrying Democrat who loves Joe Biden. He has been lying in wait for the opportunity to take down the Trump administration because he hates them. He is 100% politically motivated. How does that change anything at all? To make the worst possible analogy for the Democrats case here, if drug dealer #1 reports another drug dealer #2 for dealing drugs because he wants drug dealer #2 out of the way, do the police have to let drug dealer #2 off the hook? What does the motivation of the person reporting the crime have to do with the underlying crime itself? ---
**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 14, 2019, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4454 "2019-11-14T16:42:56Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > I ask this in all honesty, and just a simple question. I won’t even argue against the answer, because I just want to understand the thought process. > > What difference does the whistlelblower’s intentions or motivations make? > > For the sake of argument, let’s say that this whistleblower is a card carrying Democrat who loves Joe Biden. He has been lying in wait for the opportunity to take down the Trump administration because he hates them. He is 100% politically motivated. > > How does that change anything at all? To make the worst possible analogy for the Democrats case here, if drug dealer #1 reports another drug dealer #2 for dealing drugs because he wants drug dealer #2 out of the way, do the police have to let drug dealer #2 off the hook? What does the motivation of the person reporting the crime have to do with the underlying crime itself? It doesn’t change anything. There is no legitimate reason for this request. It has nothing to do with the accusations of wrongdoing against Trump. ---
**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 14, 2019, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4455 "2019-11-14T16:45:32Z")
It’s no big deal they JUST want to ASK him or her some QUESTIONS. That’s all. ---
**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 14, 2019, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4456 "2019-11-14T16:46:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > … It has nothing to do with the accusations of wrongdoing against Trump. Much like Nunes’ opening statement. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4457 "2019-11-14T16:47:26Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The repeated requests to repeat the question, the numerous times he said some variation of “I don’t know”. Just one more item regarding this silly idea of calling the witness a “bumbler” A lot had to do with the very stupid conspiracy theories out there that many on the right (even Trump) are taking as good information. It is clear that the dysfunctional leadership of the Republicans are the ones being led with their noses by crap information that then is repeated in the inquiry then. > **[To Understand Republicans’ Questions At Today’s Impeachment Hearings, You Had...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/republicans-impeachment-facebook-misinformation-day-one?%3Fbftw=pol)** > > The hearings might lead to President Donald Trump’s impeachment. But they won’t make us agree with — or understand — each other. > [@](#): > > The Witnesses At Today’s Impeachment Hearing Weren’t Trying To Evade Republicans’ Questions. They Couldn’t Understand Them. > > … > > There is one America that believes what was in former FBI director Robert Mueller’s report, that there was coordinated Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which helped the Trump campaign. But there is a second America that believes that in the summer of 2016, the Democratic National Committee colluded with Ukrainian nationals to frame the Trump campaign for collusion with Russia, implicating a Ukrainian American DNC contractor, Alexandra Chalupa, in the collusion and the California-based cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike in the subsequent cover-up. > > This unfounded theory has been propped up by a 2017 Politico story; reporting from right-wing political commentator John Solomon published earlier this year in the Hill; Attorney General Bill Barr’s summer travels; the yearlong personal investigation into Ukraine conducted by Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer working for Trump; and coverage from Fox News and conservative news sites. All of that came into play during Wednesday’s hearing, sometimes implicitly and sometimes explicitly. Late into the hearing, Republican Ohio Rep. Brad Wenstrup entered the Politico investigation into the record. > > But at least, at that moment, it was clear what was happening. The most surreal exchange of the hearing was between Steve R. Castor, a lawyer for House Republicans, and Taylor. Castor questioned Taylor for several minutes but was unable to get a proper answer from the ambassador — not because Taylor was being evasive, but because he couldn’t understand anything Castor was saying. > > ``` > “I'm sorry. What's the question?” > > ``` > > Castor began by asking if Taylor agreed that Trump was concerned that Ukrainian nationals were “out to get” him during his presidential campaign. > > “Mr. Castor, I don’t know the exact nature of President Trump’s concerns,” Taylor replied. > > Castor then asked about former Trump presidential campaign chair Paul Manafort’s black ledger, a document that reportedly contains evidence of off-the-books payments from former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych’s Party of Regions to Manafort. Once again, Taylor said he didn’t know. > > “But certainly that gives rise to some concern that there are elements to the Ukrainian establishment that were out to get the president, and that’s a very reasonable belief of his,” Castor asked. > > Taylor: “I don’t know.” > > “The run-up to the 2016 election — there are many facts that remain unresolved, agreed?” Castor said. > > “I’m sorry. What’s the question?” Taylor replied. > > This back-and-forth continued for minutes as Castor attempted to force the ambassador to confirm any single piece of the DNC–Ukraine collusion conspiracy theory. ---
**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 14, 2019, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4458 "2019-11-14T16:48:24Z")
There’s been a recent GOP talking point that impeachment is based on hearsay. This is false. We will be hearing from several witnesses who were directly involved and spoke to Trump himself. We also got a “transcript” directly from the White House. That’s not remotely hearsay. It’s factually false to assert that the impeachment inquiry is based on hearsay. The primary document came from the White House itself (not to mention assertions from WH staff, like Mick Mulvaney). ---
**Author:** ![MulderMuffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldermuffin/32/2862_2.png) [@MulderMuffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MulderMuffin)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4459 "2019-11-14T16:48:51Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > I ask this in all honesty, and just a simple question. I won’t even argue against the answer, because I just want to understand the thought process. > > What difference does the whistlelblower’s intentions or motivations make? > > For the sake of argument, let’s say that this whistleblower is a card carrying Democrat who loves Joe Biden. He has been lying in wait for the opportunity to take down the Trump administration because he hates them. He is 100% politically motivated. > > How does that change anything at all? To make the worst possible analogy for the Democrats case here, if drug dealer #1 reports another drug dealer #2 for dealing drugs because he wants drug dealer #2 out of the way, do the police have to let drug dealer #2 off the hook? What does the motivation of the person reporting the crime have to do with the underlying crime itself? The only time it could be honestly argued that his motivations are at all relevant is when they are deciding whether or not to even entertain the idea of looking into the accusations. It could have possibly been argued as relevant back when the IG received the complaint. “We don’t think this is even worth looking in to, because WB has always hated Trump, and this is the 5th time he’s leveled accusations this month!” Once they uncovered any corroborating evidence, his part in this tale became superfluous. ---
**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 14, 2019, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4460 "2019-11-14T16:49:23Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > I ask this in all honesty, and just a simple question. I won’t even argue against the answer, because I just want to understand the thought process. > > What difference does the whistlelblower’s intentions or motivations make? > > For the sake of argument, let’s say that this whistleblower is a card carrying Democrat who loves Joe Biden. He has been lying in wait for the opportunity to take down the Trump administration because he hates them. He is 100% politically motivated. > > How does that change anything at all? It supports the GOP narrative that this is all just a partisan witchhunt contrived to overturn the 2016 election, to give their senators cover when they vote to acquit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=222) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=224)