# 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:** 252
**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 19, 2019, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5021 "2019-11-19T01:56:03Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > \ > > Can anyone tell me why the 4th amendment won’t apply in this case? I think **Lance Turbo** gave you a good explanation, but I’m going to disagree a little bit on who “owns” the rights to tax returns and why it is different for Trump: One of the most common mistakes I see a lot of people make when looking at these many investigations into Trump and his alleged misdeeds is that he enjoys the same rights and protections as a private citizen. He does not. He is a public servant. As such, he forfeits many rights he may enjoy solely as a private citizen. As a private citizen, you have a right to expect your tax returns will be kept private except in very limited, specific circumstances. For example, courts at the state level frequently order tax records disclosed in domestic cases so parties can examine income for purposes of determining spousal and/or child support. But if you think about it, you will likely identify many situations where public servants must forfeit their individual privacy rights. Every time a public servant undergoes a background check, a lie detector test, a check of their credit – and yes, a check of their tax records, they have agreed to undergo such examination in exchange for the privilege of serving the public good. They have also agreed to carry out the laws of the land – irrespective of whether they privately agree with those laws. When your oath requires you to defend and protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to faithfully uphold the laws of the land as they are written, you’re agreeing that The People have the right to check up on you to ensure you’re carrying out your oath if they believe they have cause. I will add that the Fourth Amendment is generally construed to mean a protection against an illegal search or seizure. There’s nothing illegal about this search. It’s enshrined in law as an exception for the purposes of oversight. If you think that the Founders intended for a public servant holding the most powerful office in the land is automatically exempt from oversight because he is claiming rights to which he is forfeit as a private citizen, I’d gently remind you that the Constitution as a whole was written to explicitly prevent this sort of authoritarianism. Trump is not a private citizen. It’s a mistake to view his position otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b487fb/32.png) [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walken_After_Midnight)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5022 "2019-11-19T02:08:26Z")
More: > [@](#): > > Q: And Sondland agreed with you that the President did not give a shit about Ukraine. So his answer was to you, the President doesn’t give a shit about Ukraine? > DAVID HOLMES: My recollection, he said, Nope, not at all, doesn’t give a shit about Ukraine. > … > DAVID HOLMES: “[T]he media, the intensity and consistency of the media attacks of [Yovanovitch] personally by name as a U.S. Ambassador and the scope of the allegations that were leveled against her, the intensity of that, I’ve never seen anything like that.” > … > DAVID HOLMES: After Yovanovitch was recalled, Ambassadors Sondland and Volker and Secretary Perry “made it clear” they had responsibility for engaging with the Zelensky admin, and Sondland “portrayed himself as the conduit” to President Trump and Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5023 "2019-11-19T02:16:05Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > Congress only agreed to a 10 day hold, out of respect for the court, after which the scotus will have to agree to take the case or honor the previous judgments. > > At least that’s what I read. The is false. The SCOTUS does NOT have to agree to take any case, let alone this one. ---
**Author:** ![Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b487fb/32.png) [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walken_After_Midnight)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5024 "2019-11-19T02:17:31Z")
[Rex Tillerson](https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1196591187026751488) tells Judy Woodruff: > [@](#): > > “There’s just no two ways about it. So if you’re seeking some kind of personal gain and you’re using whether it’s American foreign aid or American weapons or American influence, that’s wrong. And I think everyone understands that.” ---
**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 19, 2019, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5025 "2019-11-19T02:36:17Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > Does Trump get 4th amendment relief when it comes to Congress asking for his taxes? I really don’t know why not. His lawyers are claiming congress can’t just ask for the tax records with no reason. I realize there is a law at play that says the tax records “SHALL” be provided, but it would seem the 4th amendment supersedes that law. > > Can anyone tell me why the 4th amendment won’t apply in this case? Besides what **Lance Turbo** said, it should also be pointed out that the 4th Amendment doesn’t read, “There’s no way to look in anyone’s stuff! Never and no how!” The 4th gives a basic guideline to what they’re looking for in terms of making sure that everything is fair and that people aren’t looking at stuff without due cause and safety procedures. If you’re following those guidelines, you’re completely safe. So even if we assumed that the President’s tax information was protected by the 4th, Congress would simply issue a warrant based on an affirmed statement that it needed looking at. They already have that via Michael Cohen. But, more importantly, the President is not a citizen (even if he was previously). Soldiers, for example, go up under the military code of justice. [They don’t implicitly have freedom of speech.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_expression) Officers of the government are not citizens. Or, alternately, they are citizens who - as able minded adults - entered into an agreement to live by a different set of rules. They relinquished their every day rights. It is not secret that, if you become a President, then the head of the Finance Committee can simply ask to see your tax returns. It’s not secret that, if you are a member of the Federal government, you are not allowed to participate in political campaigns or endorse candidates unless you are the President or VP. And it’s not secret that Congress gets to decide what the rules are for officers of the government - including the President. ---
**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 19, 2019, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5026 "2019-11-19T02:44:01Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > The is false. The SCOTUS does NOT have to agree to take any case, let alone this one. Did you finish reading the post you replied to? ---
**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 19, 2019, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5027 "2019-11-19T03:03:15Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > The is false. The SCOTUS does NOT have to agree to take any case, let alone this one. To build on what **steronz** wrote, > [@dontbesojumpy](#): > > […] after which the scotus will have to agree to take the case or honor the previous judgments. My underline. If the court doesn’t take the case, the lower ruling stands. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5028 "2019-11-19T03:21:31Z")
This probably goes without saying, but if you go to [Foxnews.com](http://Foxnews.com), it is a whole different universe from reality. Ever single story is about Hunter Biden or righteous Republicans pushing back on Democrats. It’s crazy. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5029 "2019-11-19T05:36:35Z")
I’m still amazed that GOP leaders aren’t turning against the Orange Criminal in droves. Yet prediction markets still think Trump will be the 2020 nominee. I’m delighted of course, hoping the GOP is crushed in the near future by the weight of its own corruption. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > I can’t become so jaded yet – that SCOTUS is already corrupt to the point that they disregard rules that have been in place since 1924 meant to prevent corruption … You under-estimate the venality of Kavanaugh, Alito and their ilk. If Scotus rules 8-1 or 9-0 in favor of upholding the law, it will only be because the scumsters knew they didn’t have 5 votes. Of course there’s political calculation involved. Roberts may have cast the 5-4 vote to allow Obamacare to proceed simply for fear that the chaos after overriding Obamacare would have damaged GOP credibility. Perhaps the scumsters on the Court will vote against Trump not out of respect for law, but to lead the way for the GOP to recover from this nightmare. ---
**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 19, 2019, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5030 "2019-11-19T05:44:00Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I’m still amazed that GOP leaders aren’t turning against the Orange Criminal in droves. Yet prediction markets still think Trump will be the 2020 nominee. I’m delighted of course, hoping the GOP is crushed in the near future by the weight of its own corruption. The FEC is out of commission and the Democratic candidates don’t seem to have noticed it. Usually, the polls would give you a sense of who is going to win since that’s a pretty direct correlation to voting. But if one side plans to cheat… ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5031 "2019-11-19T07:26:14Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > To build on what **steronz** wrote, > > My underline. If the court doesn’t take the case, the lower ruling stands. > > ~Max The ruling can stand on its head for all the President cares. If you cannot physically force him to do it, all the paperwork in the world isn’t worth shit. Two years of listening to the calming noise of “Don’t worry-He won’t do that” and “Don’t worry-he can’t do that” and my favorite “Don’t worry-He is too incompetent to do that”, and knowing that he will, he can, and no one will get in his way in any significant way. ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5032 "2019-11-19T11:33:42Z")
> [@Running\_with\_Scissors](#): > > Well, it’s not a criminal case, so the fifth amendment doesn’t apply. They can subpoena him, but what are the odds he’d honor it? I’d say my odds of winning the Powerball are higher, and I don’t even play. > > ETA: Hmm, and this raises an interesting question. If the CIC is impeached, subpoenaed and questioned, assuming he doesn’t perjure himself, can answers to self-incriminating questions asked during the impeachment hearing be used in a criminal trial, even if said CIC doesn’t appear as a witness in said trial? They can. That is why people testifying before Congress sometimes assert their 5th Amendment right not to answer. If the answer could be incriminating, and the person does not have immunity (or some other way of being safe from prosecution) then the person cannot be compelled to answer. Last I heard earlier today, Trump tweeted that he was seriously considering testifying. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > The ruling can stand on its head for all the President cares. If you cannot physically force him to do it, all the paperwork in the world isn’t worth shit. Two years of listening to the calming noise of “Don’t worry-He won’t do that” and “Don’t worry-he can’t do that” and my favorite “Don’t worry-He is too incompetent to do that”, and knowing that he will, he can, and no one will get in his way in any significant way. The subpoenas are directed to his accountants, who possess the financial records being sought. Trump can intervene to make his arguments that they should not comply, but it won’t be up to Trump, if they are ordered released. It’s one thing for Trump to thumb his nose at Congressional subpoenas, but quite another for an accounting firm to ignore a court order. According to CNBC, the accounting firm, Mazars USA, has said they will comply if ordered to turn the records over. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5033 "2019-11-19T14:41:12Z")
Strange that all those making damning accounts of Trump’s actions are willing to do so under oath, while all those making excuses are not. ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5034 "2019-11-19T15:13:55Z")
> [@Ike\_Witt](#): > > Oh please. Oh please. Oh please. Oh please. Oh please. I, for one, recalled [this](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3b/40/85/3b40850b6338318952adcb0d9e6aed40.jpg) Far Side cartoon. It is especially appropriate that the victim has been colorized to a big, _orange_, tomcat. ---
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5035 "2019-11-19T15:20:53Z")
I’m sure that I’ve said this before somewhere but what worries me the most is the thought that someone as crooked as Trump with some level, any level, of competence could be sitting in the WH. If its this hard to impeach/remove/vote out of office such a buffoon, what hope is there for the future of our country? Its depressing. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5036 "2019-11-19T15:29:47Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#): > > The subpoenas are directed to his accountants, who possess the financial records being sought. Trump can intervene to make his arguments that they should not comply, but it won’t be up to Trump, if they are ordered released. It’s one thing for Trump to thumb his nose at Congressional subpoenas, but quite another for an accounting firm to ignore a court order. According to CNBC, the accounting firm, Mazars USA, has said they will comply if ordered to turn the records over. They said the same thing about the previous court that took the case. ---
**Author:** ![Icarus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icarus/32/72_2.png) [@Icarus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icarus)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5037 "2019-11-19T15:33:45Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > I’m sure that I’ve said this before somewhere but what worries me the most is the thought that someone as crooked as Trump with some level, any level, of competence could be sitting in the WH. If its this hard to impeach/remove/vote out of office such a buffoon, what hope is there for the future of our country? Its depressing. FWIW I blame political parties. Nowhere in the creation of our government, constitution, etc., are political parties enshrined. However, once born, they have served to hold sway over law, policy, and certainly practice. This is one glaring example. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5038 "2019-11-19T15:45:58Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > \ The People have the right to check up on you to ensure you’re carrying out your oath **if they believe they have cause**. Bolding mine. There are two problems with your description of why congress can be allowed to request the tax records. First, I don’t see anywhere that any cause was given to review them. I totally agree that if Congress has cause, as sworn under oath, they have the right. Or at least the chairman of the committee does. The previous answer, that the tax records aren’t Trump’s, is better because then no cause is needed. The tax records aren’t Trump’s and his rights aren’t being violated. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > I will add that the Fourth Amendment is generally construed to mean a protection against an illegal search or seizure. This is the second problem. The 4th amendment says no such thing. It says people are guarded against unreasonable search and seizure. Nothing about legality is mentioned. Legislatures can and have passed laws making certain searches and seizures legal. Then the Supreme Court steps in and says, “Nope. It runs afoul of the 4th amendment.” This law, as far as I know, has never been tested. The Supreme Court will determine if it is constitutional or not. Just because it was passed doesn’t mean much until it is tested. There are those who are saying the law, as written, has limits. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide that. It is not an argument without merit. However, if those records are not Trump’s, then all of this become moot and I really, really hope that is the way this goes. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > If you think that the Founders intended for a public servant holding the most powerful office in the land is automatically exempt from oversight because he is claiming rights to which he is forfeit as a private citizen, I’d gently remind you that the Constitution as a whole was written to explicitly prevent this sort of authoritarianism. That is a huge extrapolation from the question I asked. Do not assign motivations to my questions that you are making up in your head. Where in my question did I ask, or even imply, in any way, shape or form that this was a question of Congress having general oversight of the President? Of course they do. But that oversight is not unlimited. I loathe Trump. I hope this succeeds because Congress needs to assert some control over a president out of control. But this also needs to succeed on its merits, not just because I don’t like Trump. ---
**Author:** ![MulderMuffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldermuffin/32/2862_2.png) [@MulderMuffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MulderMuffin)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5039 "2019-11-19T15:52:45Z")
Nunes has virtually no questions for the witnesses except who they told about their concerns, as he is trying to out the whistleblower, and whether they leaked to the press. Other than that, he’s just harping on the Bidens and on conspiracy theories. Biden conspiracy theories, even if proven to be 100% true, would not in the least exonerate Trump from the wrongdoings in question. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5040 "2019-11-19T16:08:35Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > So even if we assumed that the President’s tax information was protected by the 4th, Congress would simply issue a warrant based on an affirmed statement that it needed looking at. They already have that via Michael Cohen. What they have from Micheal Cohen is the justification for creating an affirmed statement, yes? I don’t know of any statement that was made. Do you? Did anyone say, “We want to look at his tax records because Micheal Cohen testified \ and that strongly indicates there are violations and/or concerns about undo foreign influence on the president?” If that statement was made, then you are 100% correct and the question is answered. If not, and the request was made without a statement of justification, I’m back to my original question. While the President is not a normal citizen, I do not believe he is subject to total invasion of his private life just because he is President. At some point the President will be an honest, hard working, upright person. It could be a Democrat or a Republican. But either way, I do not want that President hounded by a congress out of control with unchecked ability to harass the President just because they don’t like him. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=251) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=253)