# 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:** 230
**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, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4581 "2019-11-14T23:38:35Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > It “shed light on” the fact that I’m pretty similar to most politically-involved people, at least in this regard. I don’t particularly like nor dislike that fact. No, that’s not it. Everyone isn’t like you. Don’t use that misconception to justify your own lack of principles. “They did it too!” is not something a parent would accept from a child to excuse bad behavior. It doesn’t work for adults either, and that path leads to a very dark place where there are no norms, no ethics, no right or wrong, just might makes right. Is that really what you think America should be? Seriously you may want to take a step back and think about how you really feel about our country and our obligations to those that come after us. But that’s up to you of course. ---
**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, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4582 "2019-11-14T23:39:37Z")
> [@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 Don’t get too attached to that talking point. There’s been ONE day of hearings. I’ve read some of the testimonies of the upcoming witnesses. There are first hand accounts coming up. Anyway, I’ve got out my popcorn. I recognize that there currently is no chance that Senate will vote for removal — but the R’s have a problem. Because I think Trump honestly believes that it is absolutely fine to tie US foreign policy to support for his campaign. And he’ll keep doing it and he will offer you absolutely nothing to hang a defense on. And Russia will keep pulling his strings, like they did by getting that disinformation packet into Rudy Guiliani greasy hands. And Parnas and Fruman are loose cannons. ---
**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, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4583 "2019-11-14T23:47:34Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > This was, I believe, my original point. If President Trump had delayed the spending beyond Sept. 30, it seems like a clear-cut impoundment, but that didn’t happen. The hold was released weeks before the deadline and Congress extended the deadline anyways. Then why doesn’t Ukraine have the $35 million they were promised? > [@](#): > > Ok, I think we probably agree then that just because we can’t lay our filthy little pleb fingers on a copy of obscure government documents like SecDef certifications (or apportionment letters) should not be taken as proof that they were never made, right? Are you playing some sort of stupid game here? Just spit it out. But your theory of the crime, inspector, is that — 1. Obama decided not to provide lethal aid; 2. Everyone and their mother knew that he would not provide it; 3. But Obama tried to cover it up by not providing a certification that is not generally made public; 4. McCain, Durbin, Portman, Shaheen, Graham, and all the other anti-Russian and massively pro-Ukrainian lawmakers engaged in a conspiracy to criticize Obama for not providing the aid but all keep totally mum on his violation of the notification law. Does that tie up your theory in a clean package, detective? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2019, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4584 "2019-11-14T23:58:15Z")
Man, I just want to fast-forward to the Senate vote already. Skip this sausage-making process. ---
**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, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4585 "2019-11-14T23:59:33Z")
You want the Jury to be sent to deliberate before the prosecution has completed its investigation, let alone before the trial? Sounds like the opposite of justice. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4586 "2019-11-15T00:37:04Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > You want the Jury to be sent to deliberate before the prosecution has completed its investigation, let alone before the trial? > > Sounds like the opposite of justice. The Senate holds a trial. The House hearing is the equivalent to the prosecutor sitting in his office, looking at the information that the police have brought him, and deciding which crimes he has enough evidence for that he can issue an indictment. The only reasons to be having these hearings, that I can think of, are: 1. Because the Senate won’t allow the prosecution to make a case. 2. To raise money for the DNC for 2020. 3. To ensure that all of the accusations are stale and have a lot of time to accrue misleading defences against them that leave the public uncertain about the what matters any more, before it goes to the Senate. Given that Schiff isn’t trying to make a full case, e.g. by demonstrating a historical pattern of behavior of corruption, historical evidence that Trump is not trustworthy, etc. as he would, if he was going for #1, I lean towards option #2. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4587 "2019-11-15T01:19:09Z")
I laughed out loud when I read [what Pelosi said](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-calls-trumps-actions-bribery-as-democrats-sharpen-case-for-impeachment/2019/11/14/0ee9a202-0702-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html): > [@Nancy Pelosi](#): > > “If the president has something that is exculpatory — Mr. President, that means you have anything that shows your innocence — then he should make that known.” I can hear Trump saying, ‘I know what exculpatory means! I’ve been exculpated many, many times.’ ---
**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 15, 2019, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4588 "2019-11-15T01:56:35Z")
We’ve all heard the conspiracy theory that Christine Blasey Ford was actually Brett Kavanaugh in drag. Here’s one for this hearing: William Taylor is actually Tom Brokaw in disguise (same exact voice). ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4589 "2019-11-15T01:56:54Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > I laughed out loud when I read [what Pelosi said](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-calls-trumps-actions-bribery-as-democrats-sharpen-case-for-impeachment/2019/11/14/0ee9a202-0702-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html): > I can hear Trump saying, ‘I know what exculpatory means! I’ve been exculpated many, many times.’ “My barber does it all the time” The long and short of it is we have a corrupt idiot in the White House. ---
**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 15, 2019, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4590 "2019-11-15T02:18:05Z")
Framing it as bribery is something I said they should do weeks ago. The Ukrainian call is clearly asking for a bribe and bribery is part of the impeachment description. Really don’t know why they argued quid pro quo for as long as they did. ---
**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 15, 2019, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4591 "2019-11-15T02:22:58Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > The crime is Bribery and it’s spelled out in the Constitution, guys. The Constitution is silent as to whether it’s the offering or taking of bribes, so we may assume both are valid. > > Art 2, Sec 4: > > “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.” As I’ve been saying… 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4592 "2019-11-15T02:57:36Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Framing it as bribery is something I said they should do weeks ago. The Ukrainian call is clearly asking for a bribe and bribery is part of the impeachment description. Really don’t know why they argued quid pro quo for as long as they did. Though, strangely, she reverses the direction of the bribe (or I’ve been thinking of it in reverse). I suspect that they’ve decided that “soliciting a bribe” is too hard for the average person to equate to being the same thing as “bribing”, so they’ve made it so Trump was bribing Zelensky. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4593 "2019-11-15T03:01:29Z")
Hey, I don’t mean to interrupt the Hurricane Ditka show, who firmly controls the narrative at this point–but…I have a fact based question regarding the impeachment. One of the major defenses the GOP has for all of this is that eventually, and without reciprocity, the money was released. Does anyone know why? Was the money released because of an approaching deadline that would be a clear violation of congressional law? Was it released because the whistle blower had at that point outed the whole thing? I’m a little worried the court of public opinion will be swayed by the fact that “sure, we demanded this be done in order to get the money, but they didn’t even do it _and we released the money_.” \*\*\*Why \*\*\*did they release the money? ---
**Author:** ![Guest-starring\_Id](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guest-starring_id/32/21736_2.png) [@Guest-starring\_Id](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guest-starring_Id)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4594 "2019-11-15T03:09:07Z")
[Career White House budget official expected to break ranks, testify in impeachment inquiry](https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/11/14/career-white-house-budget-official-expected-break-ranks-testify-impeachment-inquiry/) ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4595 "2019-11-15T03:10:32Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > \ > > One of the major defenses the GOP has for all of this is that eventually, and without reciprocity, the money was released. > > Does anyone know why? Was the money released because of an approaching deadline that would be a clear violation of congressional law? Was it released because the whistle blower had at that point outed the whole thing? > > I’m a little worried the court of public opinion will be swayed by the fact that “sure, we demanded this be done in order to get the money, but they didn’t even do it _and we released the money_.” \*\*\*Why \*\*\*did they release the money? The funds were released within 48 hours of the whistleblower’s information coming to public light. Behind the scenes, OMB officials were already advising Trump that withholding the aid was illegal. We are left to draw our own conclusions. Try to remember, however, that a foiled extortion attempt is just as illegal as an accomplished one. This should be the main point you make to anyone pretending that because the funds were released, no crime occurred. Many people are convicted of attempted rape, attempted burglary, attempted conspiracy, attempted murder… you get the idea. Accomplishment of the crime is not necessary for the attempt to still be a crime. ---
**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 15, 2019, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4596 "2019-11-15T03:16:13Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > Hey, I don’t mean to interrupt the Hurricane Ditka show, who firmly controls the narrative at this point–but…I have a fact based question regarding the impeachment. > > One of the major defenses the GOP has for all of this is that eventually, and without reciprocity, the money was released. > > Does anyone know why? Was the money released because of an approaching deadline that would be a clear violation of congressional law? Was it released because the whistle blower had at that point outed the whole thing? > > I’m a little worried the court of public opinion will be swayed by the fact that “sure, we demanded this be done in order to get the money, but they didn’t even do it _and we released the money_.” \*\*\*Why \*\*\*did they release the money? In terms of a factual answer, all we can say is that nobody in the state department knew why the money was on hold in the first place. Ukrainian officials were asking them why the money wasn’t flowing, and they didn’t have an answer – they asked up the chain and were told nothing. Then the whistleblower report leaked out, and the money was magically released. Trump’s attack dogs are now claiming that Trump put a hold on the money because didn’t have enough warm fuzzies about Zeleskyy’s reform efforts until he’d met with Pence etc, and once those warm fuzzies came through he released the money. The problem with this, of course, is that it’s all post-hoc rationalization since there’s no pre-whistleblower documentation or contemporaneous testimony backing up this reasoning for the hold. If Trump put a hold on the money pending warm fuzzies, and then got those warm fuzzies, he sure never clued anyone in as to what he was doing. Of course, there’s this other explanation for the hold, that there IS contemporaneous testimony to support… ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4597 "2019-11-15T03:28:16Z")
> [@Guest-starring\_Id](#): > > [Career White House budget official expected to break ranks, testify in impeachment inquiry](https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/11/14/career-white-house-budget-official-expected-break-ranks-testify-impeachment-inquiry/) That’s an OMB person. That’s pretty huge. Mulvaney runs the OMB and has (a bit comically) been avoiding testifying. ---
**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 15, 2019, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4598 "2019-11-15T04:16:31Z")
> [@Guest-starring\_Id](#): > > [Career White House budget official expected to break ranks, testify in impeachment inquiry](https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/11/14/career-white-house-budget-official-expected-break-ranks-testify-impeachment-inquiry/) [non-paywalled version](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/budget-official-expected-defy-white-house-testify-impeachment-inquiry-n1082696) ---
**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 15, 2019, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4599 "2019-11-15T04:59:34Z")
The thing is that I don’t actually think proving the Quid pro Quo portion of the interaction is actually required, and focusing energy on proving that is to some extent letting the Republicans control the narrative. As I posted in another thread: Although the holding back of the aid has national security implications that make the matter particularly bad; in terms of corruption and abuse of power, it would have been it still would have been a significant abuse of power if the president made the request he made even without holding the aid in the balance. The good will of the president of the United States in and of itself is a thing of value. If you are a small country who is in the US sphere of influence, and the president says jump, he doesn’t need to tell you what will happen if you don’t jump, you’ll still answer “how high?”. ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4600 "2019-11-15T05:09:36Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Can’t you just answer a question posed directly to you?.. I would say it has been obvious for some time the answer to that is no. Which leaves wondering why posters continue to engage. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=229) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=231)