# 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:** 228
**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 14, 2019, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4541 "2019-11-14T20:56:15Z")
> [@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 That’s one of the talking points, but there are others. ---
**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, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4542 "2019-11-14T20:57:55Z")
Same song (past tense “read”, ok?) Read it in Trump’s transcript The doofus said it was a perfect call. ---
**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, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4543 "2019-11-14T21:06:24Z")
> [@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. I think that the foucusing on Trump having “bribed” Zelensky as a strategy for proving its impeachable is probably not helpful. When the framers put that in the Constitution, it think its much more likely that they wanted to prevent government officials receiving bribes, not giving them. As Walken said, its really all about the abuse of power for personal gain. ---
**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, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4544 "2019-11-14T21:10:18Z")
What I’m amazed at is that Republicans know Trump and his ways very well. They know he’s guilty as hell. Yet these supposed “noble Americans” are willing to lie, cheat, falsely accuse. All selfishly for their careers. This is shocking. ---
**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, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4545 "2019-11-14T21:12:16Z")
> [@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 So lets get some of those first hand witnesses on the stand. We can start with Trump and work down from there. ---
**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, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4546 "2019-11-14T21:27:03Z")
A 2016 Trump voter (of the “I always voted Republican type”) sent me the following message she wrote to Cornyn and Cruz: > [@](#): > > I’m writing in regards to the impeachment of our President. The entire thing is disturbing; that our President would use people outside our government to stir up trouble or dig up dirt on his political opponents. He is an embarrassment, and makes the United States look stupid to the entire world. > > What is almost worst is the way the Senate is acting in such a partisan manner. I fully understand the spin by both sides but here is what I expect from the senators who represent ME: I expect both you and Mr. Cornyn to listen to the testimony with AN OPEN MIND! > > If the house proves that President Trump abused his power, then I expect the senators from Texas to vote accordingly and get him out of office! Texas is a very red state but it’s also a state of people who do the right thing! it might be the hardest vote you ever take especially if it is to be one of the 20 republicans in the senate to vote to impeach him. There will be backlash on Twitter and he will throw the biggest temper tantrum ever but that is a reflection on him. Standing up to the bully isn’t the easy choice but it’s the right choice and the people of Texas will understand that. I’d gladly defend the senators from Texas for making the hard vote when it’s the right vote. > > Anyone who goes the cowardly way and follows along the partisan group just to avoid the backlash, is not worthy of my vote ever again. I encourage you to be fair, impartial and non-partisan as this process continues, as it appears that it’ll be coming to the senate. > > Texans will back you up for making the hard vote. ---
**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, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4547 "2019-11-14T21:31:20Z")
> [@rock\_party](#): > > What I’m amazed at is that Republicans know Trump and his ways very well. They know he’s guilty as hell. Yet these supposed “noble Americans” are willing to lie, cheat, falsely accuse. All selfishly for their careers. This is shocking. From the horse’s mouth: > [@](#): > > Regarding “Trump is also a very bad president”, I disagree. My taxes have been cut and the economy is booming. That’s it. That’s all. ---
**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, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4548 "2019-11-14T21:35:49Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > 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 don’t claim to be any sort of federal budgetary expert, but if I understand correctly, apportionments can be made in one of two (or a combination of the to ways): > [@31 U.S.C. § 1512 (b)(1)](#): > > An appropriation subject to apportionment is apportioned by— > (A)months, calendar quarters, operating seasons, or other time periods; > (B)activities, functions, projects, or objects; or > (C)a combination of the ways referred to in clauses (A) and (B) of this paragraph. You can correct me where you think I’m mistaken, but my (very basic) understanding of the procedure is that: very early on in the fiscal year, the OMB lays out how a particular appropriation is to be spent via an “apportionment” (this doesn’t appear to mean that all the money must be spent within 30 days, in fact there seem to be some constraints in place to make sure that it doesn’t all get blown too early in the year). The OMB can choose to direct that money be spent by time period, or by “activities, functions, project, or objects”. This latter option seems to be most appropriate for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (because of the requirements for SecDef certification). So rather than saying something like “1/4 of the USAI money most be spent in Q1, another quarter in Q2, another quarter in Q3, and another quarter in Q4”, the OMB apportionment might say something like “half the money will be released only after SecDef makes the initial certification and the other half only after he makes the second certification”. This sort of apportionment, as long as it was made within “15 days after the date of enactment of the law by which the appropriation is made available” (31 U.S.C. § 1513 (b)(1)(B)) should fulfill the requirements of Anti-Deficiency Act, correct? The law doesn’t say the money has to be _spent_ in 15 days, only that an apportionment has to be made, in accordance with one of the methods laid out in § 1512 (b)(1). > [@Max\_S](#): > > … 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 I didn’t overlook it. I read it. I couldn’t find a copy of the letter online either. Given that we both looked, and neither one of us could find it, I’m thinking maybe it doesn’t exist, and the Obama administration violated the Impoundment Control Act. Of course, if the remedy for that is impeachment, that’s no longer relevant to Obama. ---
**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 14, 2019, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4549 "2019-11-14T21:38:03Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > From the horse’s mouth: > > > [@](#): > > > > Regarding “Trump is also a very bad president”, I disagree. My taxes have been cut and the economy is booming. > > That’s it. That’s all. The government’s budget is in deep shit because of those tax cuts but who cares as long as it benefits the right people? /sarcasm ---
**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, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4550 "2019-11-14T21:43:15Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t claim to be any sort of federal budgetary expert, but if I understand correctly, apportionments can be made in one of two (or a combination of the to ways): > > You can correct me where you think I’m mistaken, but my (very basic) understanding of the procedure is that: very early on in the fiscal year, the OMB lays out how a particular appropriation is to be spent via an “apportionment” (this doesn’t appear to mean that all the money must be spent within 30 days, in fact there seem to be some constraints in place to make sure that it doesn’t all get blown too early in the year). The OMB can choose to direct that money be spent by time period, or by “activities, functions, project, or objects”. This latter option seems to be most appropriate for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (because of the requirements for SecDef certification). So rather than saying something like “1/4 of the USAI money most be spent in Q1, another quarter in Q2, another quarter in Q3, and another quarter in Q4”, the OMB apportionment might say something like “half the money will be released only after SecDef makes the initial certification and the other half only after he makes the second certification”. This sort of apportionment, as long as it was made within “15 days after the date of enactment of the law by which the appropriation is made available” (31 U.S.C. § 1513 (b)(1)(B)) should fulfill the requirements of Anti-Deficiency Act, correct? The law doesn’t say the money has to be _spent_ in 15 days, only that an apportionment has to be made, in accordance with one of the methods laid out in § 1512 (b)(1). Which is all academic because the delay in apportioning the funds caused $35 million of the $250 million intended for Ukraine to lapse. It walked, talked, and quacked like an impoundment. Had the hold on the funds gone on for longer, much more of the $250 million would not have been spent. (However, the Congress stepped in at the last moment and extended the $35 million.) > [@](#): > > I didn’t overlook it. I read it. I couldn’t find a copy of the letter online either. Given that we both looked, and neither one of us could find it, I’m thinking maybe it doesn’t exist, and the Obama administration violated the Impoundment Control Act. Of course, if the remedy for that is impeachment, that’s no longer relevant to Obama. No certification letters like that are routinely released to the public, they are just normal work product within the government. Your assumption that Obama broke the law is utterly devoid of fact. You might as well be saying that you heard it from QAnon. ---
**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, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4551 "2019-11-14T21:45:35Z")
Obama wore a tan suit once. Let’s talk about that. Oh wait, let’s not. ---
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4552 "2019-11-14T21:46:15Z")
> [@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 You weren’t listening to it in your garage with the car running, were you?:rolleyes: ---
**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, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4553 "2019-11-14T21:51:34Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t claim to be any sort of federal budgetary expert, but if I understand correctly, apportionments can be made in one of two (or a combination of the to ways): I know you love nitpicking these little details to try and score points, but does this matter to you? If the whistleblower didn’t speak up and Trump never released the funds, would you support impeachment? If Ukraine announced Biden investigations and therefore Trump released the funds on schedule, would you support impeachment? Two yes or no questions for our patriot here. ---
**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, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4554 "2019-11-14T21:53:56Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Impeachment isn’t a criminal justice proceeding. It’s a political process. To be more specific, what is happening right now is a giant PR battle, where both sides try to persuade enough voters to their position to sway senators to their position. If the public learns that Ciaramella was a deeply-partisan actor, motivated not by some altruistic sense of duty but by partisan biases and political machinations to “take down” President Trump, and secretly colluding with Schiff’s staff prior to the complaint, that information is likely to sway some number of voters to the Republican side of the PR battle. I promised not to argue, so take this as requiring clarification. This seems to be an acknowledgment that the issue is entirely irrelevant to the facts of the case. Correct? ---
**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, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4555 "2019-11-14T21:58:30Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > So lets get some of those first hand witnesses on the stand. We can start with Trump and work down from there. It does seem incredibly disingenuous to simultaneously claim that we are not hearing from witnesses with firsthand knowledge, and that the witnesses with firsthand knowledge shouldn’t be heard. ---
**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, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4556 "2019-11-14T22:11:34Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > … > Questions: > > 1, In this scenario, is the CEO entitled to find out who WB is during the investigation? Even if he just wants to use him in a PR battle in the media, and accuse WB of “secret partisan bias” > 2. Is the CEO entitled to find out who WB is during the trial, assuming that WB is not called by the prosecution as a witness (after all, WB did not directly witness anything.) > 3. If the CEO has forbidden his employees to cooperate with the police investigation, can he be charged with other crimes such as obstruction of justice? > 4. Is it appropriate at this point in the investigation for the Police Chief to get involved, and tell the investigators what to do? First off, I think your scenario is a poor analogy for the impeachment inquiry on at least a couple of fronts: 1. Zelensky wasn’t aware of the OMB hold during the 7/25 phone call. To relate that back to your scenario, it would be like the council member being unaware that his mortgage was in arrears. 2. [Zelensky has stated publicly he didn’t feel “pressure” to investigate the Bidens](https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2019/10/01/lead-clarissa-ward-3p-live-jake-tapper.cnn). Anyways, with that said, now to get to your questions: 1. No. 2. IANAL, and I’m not clear on all the legal rules of discovery (for example, are statements of probable cause used to obtain search warrants generally available to the defense). 3. IANAL, and my understanding is that obstruction of justice laws vary widely from state to state. I don’t know. For example, I don’t think if I’m walking down the street and I see the police interviewing someone, that telling that person “you shouldn’t talk to cops” amounts to obstruction of justice. If the CEO tells his employees, “you shouldn’t talk to cops” that strikes me as sharing pragmatic advice. If he tells them “I’m forbidding you to talk to the police and will fire you if you do”, that probably amounts to some wrongful termination civil violation in non-RTW states and amounts to a hill of beans in RTW states. I don’t think it’s a _crime_ in either one, but again, IANAL, and so I’m open to being corrected on this point if I’m mistaken. 4. No. The Police Chief, and his entire agency, probably should have done whatever the police version of recusing themselves is right from the beginning to avoid the appearance of impropriety. ---
**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, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4557 "2019-11-14T22:13:01Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I also think he’s a good dude. Thanks, both of you. 🙂 ~Max ---
**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, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4558 "2019-11-14T22:14:15Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > I promised not to argue, so take this as requiring clarification. This seems to be an acknowledgment that the issue is entirely irrelevant to the facts of the case. Correct? I think it’s a relevant fact that the decision-makers (both the Reps that will vote on articles of impeachment and Senators that will decide guilty or not, assuming Pelosi gets her ducks in a row) ought to bear in mind when deciding. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4559 "2019-11-14T22:18:19Z")
So it _is_ entirely irrelevant to the facts of the case then? I notice that you did not address that, which was the central question of the post you responded to, so I can only assume that you do not dispute that? ---
**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, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4560 "2019-11-14T22:19:38Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > I know you love nitpicking these little details to try and score points, but does this matter to you? > > If the whistleblower didn’t speak up and Trump never released the funds, would you support impeachment? > > If Ukraine announced Biden investigations and therefore Trump released the funds on schedule, would you support impeachment? > > Two yes or no questions for our patriot here. I see three questions, not two. To the first one, yes, it’s an interesting discussion and Max S. has put considerable time into framing it, so I thought it merited a significant amount of time considering it and a serious, detailed response (or at least as close to that as I can muster). To the second, no. To the third, no. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=227) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=229)