# 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:** 227
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4521 "2019-11-14T19:21:13Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I don’t agree with that statement either. Either I have made a mistake and contradicted myself, or you have misread me. I think, if I were to summarize the post you quoted in that form, I would say “So he’s only guilty of selectively investigating political opponents if evidence shows that he caused law enforcement to drop investigations of not-political-opponents.” > > There’s more nuance but that’s basically what I’m thinking. > > ~Max The only person he tried to ‘investigate’ (actually he wanted Ukraine to SAY they where investigating) was Biden. And it’s not his job anyway. And that completely leaves out the crystal clear extortion/bribery/national security aspect of it. He wanted to smear Biden. And get bonus points for doing a solid for his BFF Putin. It was a selective attack. ---
**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 14, 2019, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4522 "2019-11-14T19:21:44Z")
> [@Sterling\_Archer](#): > > Their arguments so far have been total garbage, this one seems the least ludicrous as far as I can see. Personally, I loved the last two arguments: “He admitted to the crime in a public announcement, so therefore he is innocent of the crime.” “He and his advisers are too incompetent to have come up with such a complex extortion scheme. Therefore he is innocent of the crime.” ---
**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, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4523 "2019-11-14T19:24:12Z")
The discussion about whether the request could be a “legitimate” inquiry into corruption is ludicrous. If US officials have a genuine interest in corruption by a US citizen, then they notify US law enforcement agencies. They don’t ask other countries to do it, and they especially don’t hold back foreign aid for those other countries to do it. This is not a serious argument against impeachment. The only possible serious argument against impeachment presented so far is that the wrongdoing doesn’t rise to the level of impeachable conduct. ---
**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 14, 2019, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4524 "2019-11-14T19:26:32Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > In my opinion, > [ol][li]No[/li][li]No[/li][li]Yes[/li][li]My opinion depends on whether I think the Chief can do a fair job under those circumstances, which depends on my character judgement, which depends on his or her personal history.[/ol][/li] > ~Max Thanks for the clear, unambiguous answers. I look forward to the same from **HurricaneDitka**. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4525 "2019-11-14T19:34:22Z")
> [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > It’s more like extortion than bribery, since bribery does not necessarily suggest coercion, while extortion does, but bribery is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as a ground for impeachment. > > From Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The way I look at it is that bribery and extortion are two sides of the same coin, with extortion the worse side because coercion is worse than inducement. Republicans will surely come to the point of arguing that since this is extortion, not bribery, it’s not grounds for impeachment, but that won’t pass the laugh test. If the Founders considered bribery sufficient to impeach over, they surely felt the same about extortion. ---
**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, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4526 "2019-11-14T19:40:17Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You argued that for the kangaroo court investigation of Biden to be invalid, Trump should be shown to have stopped a valid investigation of an ally. That’s nonsense. Yes, that is nonsense. If that is what I argued, I retract it with prejudice. There are other reasons an investigation of Joe or Hunter Biden might be invalid, for example if the investigation was started without even a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. I think what I was responding to was **CarnalK** ’s post, which I interpreted to be the argument ‘it is necessarily wrong to investigate only political opponents’. I disagree with my interpretation of **CarnalK** ’s post, and here we are. ~Max ---
**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, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4527 "2019-11-14T19:40:42Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > I felt the heat from that burn so badly I need some first aid over here. Oh man, I have been getting yuks out of that one all morning. However, if it is really Cthulhu we are up against, we will soon find ourselves so removed from the concepts of “burn”, “yuks”, or really any concept graspable by any human mind, sane or insane, that it simply won’t matter anymore. Nothing will. Maybe Nyarlatohep could help, but good luck getting though to that guy. ---
**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, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4528 "2019-11-14T19:47:26Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > The only person he tried to ‘investigate’ (actually he wanted Ukraine to SAY they where investigating) was Biden. And it’s not his job anyway. I am of the opinion that if the President asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens without an existing (and legitimate) DoJ investigation that required Ukrainian assistance, that is wrong and almost certainly impeachable. Do we agree at least in part? What I’m saying is, only getting involved in the investigation of Biden and not other corrupt individuals may be appropriate if the Biden case is the only one that requires the President’s assistance. Something like, ‘the investigation hit a roadblock and Ukrainians don’t want to help out, someone have the President bring this up next time he talks to Ukraine’. ~Max ---
**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, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4529 "2019-11-14T19:48:42Z")
> [@sps49sd](#): > > My understanding- and I’m sure 6+ Dopers will correct any misapprehension- is there is a concern that Schiff held discussions with the whistleblower and then denied it. Also, the identity could help settle whether the person actually heard anything or is repeating what others have said. > > ETA: if this was covered in the previous 4,200+ posts, I apologize for having missed it. You don’t need the WB’s identity to settle whether the person actually heard anything or is repeating what others have said. In the WB report he/she specifically says that he/she was not a first-hand witness of much of the report specifics, and is relating what he/she was told by others. The facts of the case are not disputed by anyone, not even the Republicans. They are disputing process, conclusions, intent, and the "why’, but not the facts. Trump did ask the President of Ukraine to investigate the 2016 election and Biden. Fact not disputed, the why is. Trump did hold up the aid for several months. Fact not disputed, the why is. Guiliani was operating a shadow state department at the direction of the President to uncover proof of the claims that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election and that the Bidens were guilty of… something. Fact not disputed, the why is. The President did direct witnesses with knowledge or evidence of the “why” not to cooperate with a Constitutionally authorized impeachment investigation. Fact not disputed, the why is. Lev and Igor did spread around money and lies along with their requests to American officials in order to get the ambassador to Ukraine recalled. Fact not disputed, the why is. The record of the call was locked down in a secure server against protocol. Fact not disputed, the why is. None of the many, many complaints made by first- hand witnesses of these actions to their superiors or staff council at the time were investigated or escalated. Fact not disputed, the why is. I could keep going, but it’s pointless. Fact after fact is corroborated by person after person. If the only defense that can be offered is “maybe the WB _gasp!_ is not a fan of Trump, so his allegations are suspect”, then I can only say: which of the allegations were proved untrue? ---
**Author:** ![Sterling\_Archer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Sterling\_Archer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterling_Archer)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4530 "2019-11-14T20:02:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The discussion about whether the request could be a “legitimate” inquiry into corruption is ludicrous. If US officials have a genuine interest in corruption by a US citizen, then they notify US law enforcement agencies. They don’t ask other countries to do it, and they especially don’t hold back foreign aid for those other countries to do it. > > This is not a serious argument against impeachment. Agreed but it’s a whole lot better than the cloud of nonsense and BS they are kicking up so far. ---
**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, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4531 "2019-11-14T20:19:08Z")
Max S. is definitely bringing a taste of the 2003-era Dope, with long arguments and relentless citations, and for that I salute you, Max S. Truly appreciate the effort. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4532 "2019-11-14T20:22:38Z")
I just got high-fives from a couple who noticed & understood my ITMFA button. I haven’t worn it for a year or so, but it seems appropriate now. ---
**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, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4533 "2019-11-14T20:31:27Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Max S. is definitely bringing a taste of the 2003-era Dope, with long arguments and relentless citations, and for that I salute you, Max S. Truly appreciate the effort. Agreed. This is truly suspicious behavior, and he has to be unmasked! ---
**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, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4534 "2019-11-14T20:34:24Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > The way I look at it is that bribery and extortion are two sides of the same coin, with extortion the worse side because coercion is worse than inducement. Republicans will surely come to the point of arguing that since this is extortion, not bribery, it’s not grounds for impeachment, but that won’t pass the laugh test. If the Founders considered bribery sufficient to impeach over, they surely felt the same about extortion. From [_Lawfare_](https://www.lawfareblog.com/constitution-says-bribery-impeachable-what-does-mean): > [@](#): > > [T]he Founders had a broader conception of bribery than what’s in the criminal code. Their understanding was derived from English law, under which bribery was understood as an officeholder’s abuse of the power of an office to obtain a private benefit rather than for the public interest. This definition not only encompasses Trump’s conduct—it practically defines it. > … > (As an aside, Trump’s conduct also likely qualifies as extortion. As James Lindgren has explained at length, historically there has been a substantial overlap between the concepts of extortion and bribery, and around the time of the Founding, the terms were often used to describe the same conduct.) > … > As Zephyr Teachout describes in her study “Corruption in America,” the statutory definition of bribery—and its interpretation by courts—has evolved dramatically over the course of the nation’s history, from a broad conception in the early days of the Republic to today’s more narrow definition, which requires a clear quid pro quo and a very specific “official act.” Indeed, the idea of an explicit quid pro quo as a necessary element of a bribe is a recent development, borrowed from contract law in the later half of the 20th century. > … > The understanding of bribery at the Founding maps perfectly onto Trump’s conduct in his call with Zelensky. ---
**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, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4535 "2019-11-14T20:39:41Z")
Even if Republicans jam their fingers in their ears and go “La-la-la-la-a-la…”? ---
**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, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4536 "2019-11-14T20:48:04Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Agreed. This is truly suspicious behavior, and he has to be unmasked! Exactly! He’s smart… but maybe just a little _too_ smart. Joking aside, I meant my first comment in all sincerity. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4537 "2019-11-14T20:48:54Z")
I had to crank up the REO Speedwagon to stay awake while listening to the “evidence”: Heard it from a friend who Heard it from a friend who Heard it from another Trump’s been messin’ around ---
**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 14, 2019, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4538 "2019-11-14T20:50:02Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > Even if Republicans jam their fingers in their ears and go “La-la-la-la-a-la…”? I am given to understand that there is a rather obscure clause in the Constitution that says if one party does this during an impeachment proceedings, then those proceedings do not count. It’s kind of like how the jury system in this country works: If a CEO is on trial, then half the jury must consist of people who work for him, and they are allowed to declare well in advance of the trial that they know he’s innocent and will therefore not be listening to any of the testimony. And then the CEO goes free. This is the American Way. ---
**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, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4539 "2019-11-14T20:53:11Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Joking aside, I meant my first comment in all sincerity. I also think he’s a good dude. ---
**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, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4540 "2019-11-14T20:54:29Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > I had to crank up the REO Speedwagon to stay awake while listening to the “evidence”: > Heard it from a friend who > Heard it from a friend who > Heard it from another Trump’s been messin’ around Seems to fit the cadence: “Read it in Trump’s tran-script” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=226) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=228)