# 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:** 248
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2019, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4941 "2019-11-17T15:52:13Z")
> [@Running\_with\_Scissors](#): > > Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure you can’t be pardoned for a crime you haven’t been indicted for yet It may be worth noting that Nixon was not under indictment when Ford pardoned him. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > You are agreeing with Nancy Pelosi, who says [The President is not above the law.](https://www.facebook.com/NancyPelosi/photos/a.449330659383/10157436567399384/?type=3&comment_id=1248760318609610&reply_comment_id=798938950455848&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D) > > I think she’s wrong. But I can’t prove it. Yet. > > It’s true that [the whole self-pardon thing is questionable](https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/explaining-the-presidential-self-pardon-debate). > > But, in the end, the law is what the Supreme Court says it is. And at the point in time they’d have to decide this, most of them will be, as today, GOP political appointees. > > We’ll know for sure, in ten years or less, who is right – me, who says Donald Trump is above the law, or Speaker Pelosi, who says he isn’t. > > P.S. There’s one law I think Trump isn’t above. It’s the Constitutional provision that says he has to vacate the White House after eight years, or four year if he isn’t re-elected. However, he has talked about being above that law. And he’s friends with people like Putin and Erdoğan who point the way to retaining office despite term limits. So even though I think Trump isn’t above this one law, I’m not confident. People have proposed Amendments in this thread, and here’s my proposal. Whenever a president is subjected to a valid impeachment inquiry (validity to be determined by SCOTUS), his (or her, it could — eventually — be a her) pardoning prerogative is suspended for the duration (that is, until the inquiry is ended without Articles of impeachment being returned, or a verdict has been reached by the Senate). Unintended ramifications might include the president announcing pardons under consideration during the period of suspension (which could be addressed by including a gag order in the wording of the amendment), and such an amendment incentivizing getting as many appointees on the Court as possible, as quickly as possible. P.S. The amendment should also expressly prohibit self-pardoning. ---
**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 17, 2019, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4942 "2019-11-17T16:20:32Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > I feel like I directly addressed this in post #4765, almost immediately after you posted it, and you seemed to have glossed over it. There are a lot of people posting, and it becomes impractical to directly address each person in my posts. I had your comment, and others, in mind when I wrote the snippet below. I included a quote from another poster though, because I read many posters saying they exclude certain sources from their consideration entirely, and the poster I cited even expressed being only willing to read written sources, which I considered an extreme case of having such “blinders” on. It seems to me that the people on the side of “Trump needs to be impeached because of what we are hearing in the testimony” are of the “blinders on” type, while those saying “this doesn’t add up to anything remotely impeachable” are more open to perusing a variety of sources. > [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > I think you should make an exception here. This is the video of what actually happened. Nothing can be more objective in this case: > [https://mobile.twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1195446982988455938](https://mobile.twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1195446982988455938) > Why is this relevant? The first clip in the video is from her prepared opening statement. Thus it is less likely to be an innocent mistake. To me it suggests that wherever she thinks she can get away with it, she will bend the truth, or perhaps lie, to paint Trump in a bad light. To directly address what you wrote: I thought you meant I was confused about what Yovanovitch was trying to say. But since the first clip in the video above was from a prepared opening statement, it is “less likely to be an innocent mistake”, and thus, compared to the admission in the second clip, as I wrote above: “to me it suggests that wherever she thinks she can get away with it, she will bend the truth, or perhaps lie, to paint Trump in a bad light”. I don’t want to see any of these witnesses brought up on perjury charges. They have been goaded into these hearings by Democrats just out for their own political gain, and are not being given the proper cautions about testifying under oath. Google “why you should ask for a lawyer” and you will get many results explaining (among other things) that to varying degrees everyone tells white lies, rewrites events subconsciously to fit what they are thinking now, make mistakes, etc. But it appears they are just being rushed into this and promoted from the secret to the open hearings if what they say looks bad for Trump, but with no regard for making sure they aren’t mistaken, or telling the sort of lies they tend to in casual conversation but don’t even notice, in their testimony. Luckily for them, I don’t think the Republicans are going to prosecute them for it. This is having an effect I don’t think the Democrats foresaw though. Recall that in the Mueller probe a number of Trump associates were convicted of lying, and the sources it seems many people posting here refuse to look at have voiced the “people are not robots” defense in regards to some of the counts of lying: Roger Stone is an example recently in the news. And things like this from > **[Memo: FBI recommended Michael Flynn not have lawyer present during interview,...](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/?p=363926)** > > Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who arranged the bureau's interview with then-national security adviser Michael Flynn at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017 — the interview that ultimately led to Flynn's guilty plea on one count of making... > [@](#): > > Flynn, his lawyers suggest, was surprised, rushed, not warned of the context or seriousness of the questioning, and discouraged from having a lawyer present. So now it has become a Republican rallying point to call out the draconian treatment of Trump’s associates for lies or “misstatements” compared to the apparent letting such things slide for the Democrat’s impeachment witnesses. This will have the effect of having his supporters chomping at the bit to go vote for him in 2020. ---
**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 17, 2019, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4943 "2019-11-17T16:28:06Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > I don’t want to see any of these witnesses brought up on perjury charges. Of course you don’t, because it would be embarrassing to have yet another MAGA legal matter laughed out of court. The playbook for the Trump defense is slander and innuendo, and staying away from facts as possible. ---
**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 17, 2019, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4944 "2019-11-17T17:01:54Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > To directly address what you wrote: I thought you meant I was confused about what Yovanovitch was trying to say. But since the first clip in the video above was from a prepared opening statement, it is “less likely to be an innocent mistake”, and thus, compared to the admission in the second clip, as I wrote above: “to me it suggests that wherever she thinks she can get away with it, she will bend the truth, or perhaps lie, to paint Trump in a bad light”. You have failed to address what I wrote, and I’m not sure you even understand why. Do you know how confirmation hearings work? Applicants sit in front of the senate and get asked questions about their past experience. For some applicants, this involves getting softball questions from their own side, and getting grilled by the other side. In order to prepare applicants for this grilling, especially non-lawyer applicants who probably don’t otherwise have any experience with this sort of high pressure “gotcha” type of questioning, staffers will prepare “mock” questions and pretend to be opposing-side senators. It’s like the PSAT for confirmation hearings. It appears that during Amb. Yavonovitch’s preparations, Obama staffers “mock” grilled her about Biden/Burisma, in anticipation of Republicans doing the same during her confirmation hearing. The fact that they prepared her for this attack is in no way the same thing as Obama discussing Biden/Burisma with her during the course of her actual duties. That’s the simple, non-sinister explanation for this contradiction you think you’ve found. Do you dispute any of what I described? ---
**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 17, 2019, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4945 "2019-11-17T17:01:58Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > There are a lot of people posting, and it becomes impractical to directly address each person in my posts. I had your comment, and others, in mind when I wrote the snippet below. I included a quote from another poster though, because I read many posters saying they exclude certain sources from their consideration entirely, and the poster I cited even expressed being only willing to read written sources, which I considered an extreme case of having such “blinders” on. It seems to me that the people on the side of “Trump needs to be impeached because of what we are hearing in the testimony” are of the “blinders on” type, while those saying “this doesn’t add up to anything remotely impeachable” are more open to perusing a variety of sources. > > To directly address what you wrote: I thought you meant I was confused about what Yovanovitch was trying to say. But since the first clip in the video above was from a prepared opening statement, it is “less likely to be an innocent mistake”, and thus, compared to the admission in the second clip, as I wrote above: “to me it suggests that wherever she thinks she can get away with it, she will bend the truth, or perhaps lie, to paint Trump in a bad light”. > > I don’t want to see any of these witnesses brought up on perjury charges. They have been goaded into these hearings by Democrats just out for their own political gain, and are not being given the proper cautions about testifying under oath. Google “why you should ask for a lawyer” and you will get many results explaining (among other things) that to varying degrees everyone tells white lies, rewrites events subconsciously to fit what they are thinking now, make mistakes, etc. But it appears they are just being rushed into this and promoted from the secret to the open hearings if what they say looks bad for Trump, but with no regard for making sure they aren’t mistaken, or telling the sort of lies they tend to in casual conversation but don’t even notice, in their testimony. Luckily for them, I don’t think the Republicans are going to prosecute them for it. This is having an effect I don’t think the Democrats foresaw though. Recall that in the Mueller probe a number of Trump associates were convicted of lying, and the sources it seems many people posting here refuse to look at have voiced the “people are not robots” defense in regards to some of the counts of lying: Roger Stone is an example recently in the news. And things like this from > [Memo: FBI recommended Michael Flynn not have lawyer present during interview, did not warn of false statement consequences - Washington Examiner](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/memo-fbi-recommended-michael-flynn-not-have-lawyer-present-during-interview-did-not-warn-of-false-statement-consequences) > > So now it has become a Republican rallying point to call out the draconian treatment of Trump’s associates for lies or “misstatements” compared to the apparent letting such things slide for the Democrat’s impeachment witnesses. This will have the effect of having his supporters chomping at the bit to go vote for him in 2020. Jim Peebles, do you honestly think that Trump’s fixation on Hunter Biden is totally and completely unrelated to the fact that his father is his major political opponent at this point in time? And, as to the rest of this stuff, I suspect the Republicans will not be prosecuting Yovanovitch for the same reason they’re not prosecuting me for eating breakfast. Because they know there’s absolutely no fucking reason. And I expect that soon the investigation will expand beyond the phone call. Way beyond. Cause if the State Department had a policy of actively trying to put Westerners on the board of Ukrainian corporations, and the President and his henchmen were trying to subvert that process by getting Russian friendly interests on the board of those companies, there’s a word for that. And it’s not bribery. > **[Profit, not politics: Trump allies sought Ukraine gas deal](https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-elections-petro-poroshenko-international-news-donald-trump-d7440cffba4940f5b85cd3dfa3500fb2)** > > KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — As Rudy Giuliani was pushing Ukrainian officials last spring to investigate one of Donald Trump's main political rivals, a group of individuals with ties to the president and his personal lawyer were also active in the former... And Gym Jordan will be reduced to taking off his pants and screaming at the witnesses in pig Latin, then disparaging them by showing video of the confusion on their faces. ---
**Author:** ![Locrian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/locrian/32/14146_2.png) [@Locrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Locrian)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2019, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4946 "2019-11-17T18:33:02Z")
No Philly guy could ever support the idiot where I come from. I grew up 55 miles from AC in NJ in the '80s, '90s. (Go, EAGLES!) There’s still unresolved class action suits over the Taj Mahal bankruptcy. We knew he couldn’t run a hot dog stand then and it still surprises me how ANYONE outside the Trump family could ever consider him a candidate for anything. We knew then he never saw a business plan through to the end. ---
**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 17, 2019, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4947 "2019-11-17T18:47:12Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > Jim Peebles, do you honestly think that Trump’s fixation on Hunter Biden is totally and completely unrelated to the fact that his father is his major political opponent at this point in time? Yes I do. In fact, I think Trump would prefer to run against Biden over all the other Democrat contenders. Biden appears to be going senile, and Trump would crush him in debates. And if you type “creepy Uncle Joe” into youtube, you will find numerous videos which can be turned into campaign commercials to broadcast in October 2020. On top of that Biden is an old white male, which is used to disparage Republican candidates all the time. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2019, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4948 "2019-11-17T19:17:22Z")
> [@Locrian](#): > > . . . it still surprises me how ANYONE outside the Trump family could ever consider him a candidate for anything. We knew then he never saw a business plan through to the end. There’s a sucker born every minute. (We see that even here.) It’s the entire basis of Trump’s MO. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2019, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4949 "2019-11-17T19:17:44Z")
“Crush him in debate”? Trump? With his encyclopedic knowledge of the facts, and his incisive intelligence and eloquence? Or something else? ---
**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 17, 2019, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4950 "2019-11-17T19:27:02Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > “Crush him in debate”? Trump? With his encyclopedic knowledge of the facts, and his incisive intelligence and eloquence? Or something else? Probably just by sitting on him. ---
**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 17, 2019, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4951 "2019-11-17T19:33:49Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > Yes I do. In fact, I think Trump would prefer to run against Biden over all the other Democrat contenders. Because Rudy has contacted every liar in the Eastern Bloc who is willing to make shit up about the Bidens. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2019, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4952 "2019-11-17T19:44:29Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > Yes I do. In fact, I think Trump would prefer to run against Biden over all the other Democrat contenders. There are [alternatives takes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx6MgBjR4K0&t=864s) on how Biden could be helpful to the Democratic cause. ---
**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 17, 2019, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4953 "2019-11-17T19:52:32Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > How is it that so many anti-Trump Americans sincerely think that the most successful American confidence man of our time is an idiot? Trump is an idiot. There is zero question on that matter. I wrote out a post giving about 1/3rd of the variety of evidence to support that statement and the gophers ate it. I don’t feel like retyping it at the moment. So I’ll say this: 1. Michael Jackson was horrible with money and stopped developing at about age 12. For as much as he earned, he was never able to bring in more than he lost. He was both an idiot and a genius. He was a bad investment, if your intentions were benign, and a great investment if your goal is for Michael to simply serve as a host for your parasitic feeding. Payday loans are not unique to the poor. Many people have a large amount of cash flow while being, basically, idiots with a very specific talent for which they are greatly rewarded. See “tom barrack michael jackson”. See also “tom barrack donald trump otaiba” or “colony capital trump wall”. 1. If you read The Big Con, the definitive book on con artists, it’s famously said that all con artists are broke because they have a gambling addiction. They live for the rush and that always ends up screwing them over, but they can’t help it. 2. Overall, I can prove both from evidence, math, experience, and basic logic that Trump is an idiot who, yes, has a Michael Jackson sort of genius. If any of those categories in particular appeal to you, I can lay out for you the subsection in that line which proves the point. ---
**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 17, 2019, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4954 "2019-11-17T20:05:27Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > “colony capital trump wall” In this vein, I’ll also suggest: “giuliani naftogaz” and “giuliani trump insurance” “elliott broidy romanian defense” “michael cohen novartis” and “michael cohen at&t” “michael flynn turkey energy” The parasites know what’s good eatins, even the dumb ones like Cohen and Flynn. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2019, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4955 "2019-11-17T20:36:57Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > Yes I do. In fact, I think Trump would prefer to run against Biden over all the other Democrat contenders. Biden appears to be going senile, and Trump would crush him in debates. And if you type “creepy Uncle Joe” into youtube, you will find numerous videos which can be turned into campaign commercials to broadcast in October 2020. On top of that Biden is an old white male, which is used to disparage Republican candidates all the time. If Biden is going senile, then at least Trump will have company. Trump sounds like someone emptied his skull with an ice cream scoop and replaced it with cottage cheese. That debate would be the the ultimate “get off my lawn” event. Add Bernie Sanders, and you have "Grumpy Old Men III " Trump has no way to crush Biden in a debate. Anything he can go after Biden about, he’s done already, and ten times worse. Trump isn’t running against just Biden (or any other Dem nominee). He’s running against the 2016 Trump, too, and all the scandals, broken promises and “anyone but Hillary” voters that he has to try to keep. I’d love to see a Trump debate vs Mayor Pete. Talk about the ultimate in differing styles. Mayor Pete may be one of the most prepared candidates I’ve ever seen. And, as an openly gay man, he’s familiar with the concept of not taking the bait with any barbs that Trump may throw his way. That would be someone getting crushed in a debate. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2019, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4956 "2019-11-17T20:38:29Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > Yes I do. In fact, I think Trump would prefer to run against Biden over all the other Democrat contenders. … This could in fact be true. No idea. And? Trump is an idiot, and not a savant one. To the degree Trump has a talent it is his capacity to demean others. His interest is in demeaning every possible competitor and to the degree he is able to catalyze some inside the D tent ugliness, bonus. It, and claiming how best and most unfairly treated ever he is, is really all he knows how to do. There is no serious debate about the simple facts. Trump is a pathological liar who believes that the tools of the United States government are his to use for his personal benefit and anything that could potentially inhibit that should be destroyed (our intelligence community, our diplomatic corp, the scientific community, so on). He attempted to bully a U.S. dependent nation with threats that were against American interests into doing something beneficial for him personally, and created an “irregular” channel to facilitate the pursuit of his personal gains over identified American interests. Those are facts. You can believe in Santa Claus or that Godzilla just destroyed New York, facts are still facts. ---
**Author:** ![steatopygia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steatopygia/32/3132_2.png) [@steatopygia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steatopygia)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2019, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4957 "2019-11-17T20:45:38Z")
I think at this point we can say that very few people are going to change their opinion on Trump. If that Biden-Trump debate happened, people would come away with two very different conclusions based on their beliefs prior to the debate. Some would see a liar and an idiot, some would see a masterful businessman who tells it like it is. We can sum it up with this meme that has been around since before the 2016 election; “Trump is the poor man’s idea of a rich person, the stupid man’s idea of a smart person, and the weak man’s idea of a strong person.” For someone to believe that Trump, who has always been a liar and a cheat, has the best interests of the country at heart, and that thousands of people who have demonstrated personal integrity throughout their whole careers are out to get him, is nonsensical. They are not going to change their minds. ---
**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 17, 2019, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4958 "2019-11-17T20:57:06Z")
Trump’s success is not from intelligent, problem solving/negotiating abilities. His success is mostly due to him being threatening and his willingness to fight dirty and take people down. ---
**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 17, 2019, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4959 "2019-11-17T21:04:17Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > This could in fact be true. No idea. And? > > Trump is an idiot, and not a savant one. > > To the degree Trump has a talent it is his capacity to demean others. His interest is in demeaning every possible competitor and to the degree he is able to catalyze some inside the D tent ugliness, bonus. It, and claiming how best and most unfairly treated ever he is, is really all he knows how to do. > > There is no serious debate about the simple facts. Trump is a pathological liar who believes that the tools of the United States government are his to use for his personal benefit and anything that could potentially inhibit that should be destroyed (our intelligence community, our diplomatic corp, the scientific community, so on). He attempted to bully a U.S. dependent nation with threats that were against American interests into doing something beneficial for him personally, and created an “irregular” channel to facilitate the pursuit of his personal gains over identified American interests. > > Those are facts. You can believe in Santa Claus or that Godzilla just destroyed New York, facts are still facts. > [@steatopygia](#): > > I think at this point we can say that very few people are going to change their opinion on Trump. If that Biden-Trump debate happened, people would come away with two very different conclusions based on their beliefs prior to the debate. Some would see a liar and an idiot, some would see a masterful businessman who tells it like it is. > > We can sum it up with this meme that has been around since before the 2016 election; > > “Trump is the poor man’s idea of a rich person, the stupid man’s idea of a smart person, and the weak man’s idea of a strong person.” > > For someone to believe that Trump, who has always been a liar and a cheat, has the best interests of the country at heart, and that thousands of people who have demonstrated personal integrity throughout their whole careers are out to get him, is nonsensical. They are not going to change their minds. > [@rock\_party](#): > > Trump’s success is not from intelligent, problem solving/negotiating abilities. His success is mostly due to him being threatening and his willingness to fight dirty and take people down. I wish I had written any one of, or all three of, these posts. Splendidly said. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2019, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/4960 "2019-11-17T21:36:21Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Because Rudy has contacted every liar in the Eastern Bloc who is willing to make shit up about the Bidens. “The who? Sure, what’s in it for me 'n my boys” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=247) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=249)