# 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:** 233
**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, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4641 "2019-11-15T15:48:55Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Did Trump just try and intimidate a witness _in real time_? Michael Steele, former chairman of the GOP: “Dude! You realize she’s testifying LIVE?! Amb. Yovanovitch will respond to this tweet…yup, there it is. You just made her case of intimidation. Is no one in the room with you?” > > > Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4642 "2019-11-15T15:49:19Z")
> [@sps49sd](#): > > It has to do with whether these allegations are facts, and if Schiff is lying about his contacts then how much trust he deserves. **sps49sd** , can you directly respond to these responses to you above? In my mind, the really tear apart the point you made, but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise. Anyway, to the posters here in general, do you think those tweets would actually lead to an additional witness tampering or intimidation charge? Because that would be awesome. ---
**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, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4643 "2019-11-15T15:51:04Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > **sps49sd** , can you directly respond to these responses to you above? In my mind, the really tear apart the point you made, but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise. > > Anyway, to the posters here in general, do you think those tweets would actually lead to an additional witness tampering or intimidation charge? Because that would be awesome. I think it may as it was _ **so** _ public. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4644 "2019-11-15T15:52:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The debate about whether an investigation into the Bidens would be justified or frivolous is probably better-suited for another thread, so can we agree to just leave it at the recognition that our opinions differ on this point, at least for this thread? Josh Marshall makes the argument that the request for such an investigation was itself the essence of corruption. See post #4631. ---
**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 15, 2019, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4645 "2019-11-15T15:58:09Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Anyway, to the posters here in general, do you think those tweets would actually lead to an additional witness tampering or intimidation charge? Because that would be awesome. Here’s the actual tweet: Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors. Asinine, childish and wildly inappropriate, absolutely, but I’m not seeing the intimidation. Unless merely speaking publicly about someone while they’re testifying is automatically (in a legal sense) considered intimidation. ---
**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 15, 2019, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4646 "2019-11-15T15:58:26Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Did Trump just try and intimidate a witness _in real time_? I think we’re well past the point of pretending to be shocked by anything _president_ _fucking moron_ did, or is likely to do next. ---
**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, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4647 "2019-11-15T15:59:53Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > Here’s the actual tweet: > > Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors. > > Asinine, childish and wildly inappropriate, absolutely, but I’m not seeing the intimidation. Unless merely speaking publicly about someone while they’re testifying is automatically (in a legal sense) considered intimidation. Schiff said it was intimidation. And it was, obviously. This is specifically the very reason why the State Department chose not to issues a statement in her support: that if they had done so, Yovanovitch was in danger of damaging tweets from the President which would undermine the State Department’s letter of support. ---
**Author:** ![sps49sd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@sps49sd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sps49sd)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4648 "2019-11-15T16:02:32Z")
\>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. > [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Except that there is zero evidence of this and [corroboration](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-impeachment-whistleblower/whistleblower-never-met-or-talked-with-schiff-source-idUSKBN1XN2O5) of [Schiff’s denials](https://www.theepochtimes.com/schiff-i-do-not-know-the-identity-of-the-whistleblower_3145301.html) that he ever met or talked to the whistleblower. So aside from the fact that even if Schiff met with the whistleblower does not materially change the fact that everything the whistleblower revealed has been confirmed (some by the administration itself), it’s also complete bullshit. Reuters says an unnamed source corroborates Schiff? Oh goody. [Factcheck.org](https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/schiff-wrong-on-whistleblower-contact/) and the [WaPo](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/04/schiffs-false-claim-his-committee-had-not-spoken-whistleblower/) disgree. And your “everything… has been confirmed” is 1. bullshit 2. unrelated to whether they heard anything directly. ---
**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 15, 2019, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4649 "2019-11-15T16:02:36Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Anyway, to the posters here in general, do you think those tweets would actually lead to an additional witness tampering or intimidation charge? Nah, that was locker-room talk. And he was just kidding around. He doesn’t even know the woman. She’s nasty. ---
**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, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4650 "2019-11-15T16:02:40Z")
Ken Starr on Fox: ‘“The president was not advised by counsel in deciding to do this tweet. Extraordinarily poor judgment… Obviously this was quite injurious.”’ [https://twitter.com/poniewozik/status/1195369929811406855?s=20](https://twitter.com/poniewozik/status/1195369929811406855?s=20) ---
**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 15, 2019, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4651 "2019-11-15T16:03:24Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > What about pizazz? Did she have pizazz? I heard that that’s important for some reason. I thought she was riveting. And compelling. And fucking brilliant. It was radio, so I don’t know if there were any visual special effects. Like bears balancing plates on sticks or something. > [@JohnT](#): > > Michael Steele, former chairman of the GOP: > > “Dude! You realize she’s testifying LIVE?! Amb. Yovanovitch will respond to this tweet…yup, there it is. You just made her case of intimidation.\*\* Is no one in the room with you?”\*\* > > [https://twitter.com/MichaelSteele/status/1195365771112636416?s=20](https://twitter.com/MichaelSteele/status/1195365771112636416?s=20) My bold. In fairness, he was probably on the toidy. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4652 "2019-11-15T16:04:58Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Devin Nooner reads the great transcript of the great first phone call from our great Leader to President Zelensky congratulating him on his great election. It was a great call. “Your Honor, as proof that my client couldn’t possibly have robbed that bank, here is video of him entering the same bank the week prior and not robbing it.” ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4653 "2019-11-15T16:07:24Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > What about pizazz? Did she have pizazz? I heard that that’s important for some reason. One of the best things about my daily news summary email from the NY Times, is that they recap the previous night’s late night TV hosts best moments. And last night, they all jumped on the “pizzazz” argument. To paraphrase: “what is this…an impeachment inquiry, or an episode of Dance Moms?” or: “impeachment hearings are like family reunions. If they’re sexy, something’s gone horribly wrong.” ---
**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 15, 2019, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4654 "2019-11-15T16:08:38Z")
> [@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. > > Reuters says an unnamed source corroborates Schiff? Oh goody. > [Factcheck.org](https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/schiff-wrong-on-whistleblower-contact/) and the [WaPo](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/04/schiffs-false-claim-his-committee-had-not-spoken-whistleblower/) disgree. > > And your “everything… has been confirmed” is > > 1. bullshit > 2. unrelated to whether they heard anything directly. No, the “concern” among the GOP is that their president is well on his way to being impeached. They are desperately throwing anything and everything against the wall to see if they can find anything for their base to latch onto to disregard the entire process. Schiff does not matter. He is not the source of any facts. He is simply presenting those facts that are well corroborated. The GOP is finding it hard to directly discredit these witnesses or the facts that have been established, so the only move left is to try to attack the process and gum up the works with bullshit. ---
**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, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4655 "2019-11-15T16:11:48Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > **sps49sd** , can you directly respond to these responses to you above? In my mind, the really tear apart the point you made, but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise. > > Anyway, to the posters here in general, do you think those tweets would actually lead to an additional witness tampering or intimidation charge? Because that would be awesome. Hard to say, given that he regularly does this to everyone he has any disagreement with, I doubt the intention is to sway her testimony. Is “I’m going to kill you and your family” a prosecutable death threat if you make it 50 times a day to anyone who even bumps against you on the street. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4656 "2019-11-15T16:12:21Z")
Fucker can’t help himself. Intimidate and insult a witness while she’s on the stand. He’s all class, except for the C and the L. ---
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4657 "2019-11-15T16:18:55Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Devin Nooner reads the great transcript of the great first phone call from our great Leader to President Zelensky congratulating him on his great election. It was a great call. Yes, and unfortunately the world has a pretty good idea of what Trump considers a Letter to Penthouse. > [@JohnT](#): > > Except: > > 1. It doesn’t mention corruption, despite an earlier White House reading of the call which stated Trump weighed in on corruption > 2. For purposes of impeachment, **the call established that a meeting with the President was on the table** , thereby removing any “there was no original promise” arguments the Defense may have. On the other hand, I think the Republicans will try to use the call the establish that there was an open invitation from Trump for Zelensky to visit the WH so it couldn’t possibly be used as leverage. But I like your version better 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2019, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4658 "2019-11-15T16:19:09Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > “Your Honor, as proof that my client couldn’t possibly have robbed that bank, here is video of him entering the same bank the week prior and not robbing it.” Apparently the White House didn’t check their own story before releasing this transcript. The readout from the transcript previously stated that Ukrainian corruption was the topic of the call, and there is absolutely no mention of that in this “transcript”. ---
**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, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4659 "2019-11-15T16:25:41Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Hard to say, given that he regularly does this to everyone he has any disagreement with, I doubt the intention is to sway her testimony. Is “I’m going to kill you and your family” a prosecutable death threat if you make it 50 times a day to anyone who even bumps against you on the street. I disagree. I think if you occupy a position of ultimate duty, trust and authority, you have a responsibility to avoid making statements that can inflame the passions of others and could cause them to harm the object of your displeasure. To do otherwise is a classic abuse of power. If the rebuttal argument is that Trump suffers from a lack of impulse control so severe that he just can’t help himself, well… that’s an indictment on the sad state of Republicans who consider him to be presidential material. It should be repudiated in full. There has never been a person less qualified or suited to hold the office he currently occupies. ---
**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 15, 2019, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4660 "2019-11-15T16:27:17Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Schiff said it was intimidation. And it was, obviously. This is specifically the very reason why the State Department chose not to issues a statement in her support: that if they had done so, Yovanovitch was in danger of damaging tweets from the President which would undermine the State Department’s letter of support. Sorry to keep picking at this, but how is it “obviously” intimidation? It’s for sure a clumsy, wildly inappropriate attempt to \*discredit \*the witness, but it’s not like he’s saying “She better shut up if she knows what’s good for her.” Unless, as I said before, any communications like this are legally considered intimidation. Don’t get me wrong – if this is in fact an impeachable offense all by itself, I hope they impeach him for it and hope the charges stick. I just want to understand the legalities of the offense. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=232) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=234)