# 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:** 253
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5041 "2019-11-19T16:31:27Z")
> [@Icarus](#): > > 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. The First Amendment prevents the state from restricting speech, assembly, or petitions. Political parties are people exercising those rights. > [@cmosdes](#): > > 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. I do want Congress to hound the President, regardless of which party either one is. That’s part of their job. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5042 "2019-11-19T16:36:58Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > According to her, Trump never lies, people should just not take what he says literally. I think that my brain is melting and running out of my ears. ---
**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 19, 2019, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5043 "2019-11-19T16:38:10Z")
> [@MulderMuffin](#): > > 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. God what a dick. “Thank you for appearing at this sham witch hunt of a hearing today.” “At what time did you become aware that Biden sacrifices babies to Satan?” ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5044 "2019-11-19T16:41:32Z")
> [@MulderMuffin](#): > > … Biden conspiracy theories, even if proven to be 100% true, would not in the least exonerate Trump from the wrongdoings in question. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you mean here. It sounds like you’re saying that even if it were proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Biden used his position to extort the Ukrainians into firing the prosecutor investigating his son’s company for corruption, that President Trump still wouldn’t be justified in asking the Ukrainians to investigate those corrupt acts. That seems bonkers to me. Have you got something else in mind when you say “the wrongdoings in question”? ---
**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, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5045 "2019-11-19T16:46:23Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you mean here. It sounds like you’re saying that even if it were proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Biden used his position to extort the Ukrainians into firing the prosecutor investigating his son’s company for corruption, that President Trump still wouldn’t be justified in asking the Ukrainians to investigate those corrupt acts. That seems bonkers to me. Have you got something else in mind when you say “the wrongdoings in question”? “If little Jimmy Johnson extorted other countries in defiance of The Constitution Of The United States, do you think it means that you should do it too?” ---
**Author:** ![Barack\_Obama](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dc4da7/32.png) [@Barack\_Obama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barack_Obama)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5046 "2019-11-19T16:47:48Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you mean here. It sounds like you’re saying that even if it were proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Biden used his position to extort the Ukrainians into firing the prosecutor investigating his son’s company for corruption, that President Trump still wouldn’t be justified in asking the Ukrainians to investigate those corrupt acts. That seems bonkers to me. Have you got something else in mind when you say “the wrongdoings in question”? It doesn’t matter whether Biden _is_ corrupt or not, what matters is trump is running in 2020 and potentially against Biden. If there was any substantial evidence to warrant such a search it should have been forwarded to a department or source that is not the President. If something comes up of Biden doing something wrong, then fuck yeah get him I’m all for kneecapping the guy. Never the less Trump shouldn’t be forcing foreign entities to give/find information on his political opponents. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5047 "2019-11-19T16:49:16Z")
As per post #4975, the bonkers thing is to assume that Trump has a leg to stand regarding his excuse that he was investigating corruption. [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21979801&postcount=4975](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21979801&postcount=4975) ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5048 "2019-11-19T16:51:08Z")
Once again, it’s not credible that someone seriously interested in corruption would ask a foreign government, rather than US law enforcement, to investigate. There’s no reason to entertain such obvious fiction. ---
**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 19, 2019, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5049 "2019-11-19T16:53:56Z")
He doesn’t need a leg stand. He just needs the flimsiest fig leaf for his supporters to latch onto, even if the fig leaf makes no sense, isn’t true, and doesn’t exonerate him. That’s how desperate they are to avoid the mental anguish of understanding exactly what they fell for and what they’ve done, and continue to do, to our country. ---
**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 19, 2019, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5050 "2019-11-19T16:56:57Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > 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. The standard spelling is **MICHAEL**. Mr. Cohen uses the standard spelling. We now return you to our regularly-scheduled thread, already in progress. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5051 "2019-11-19T17:00:25Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Once again, it’s not credible that someone seriously interested in corruption would ask a foreign government, rather than US law enforcement, to investigate. There’s no reason to entertain such obvious fiction. So when Senate Dems send a letter to Ukraine asking for cooperation into investigations of Americans, they were … what? Not credible? Not seriously interested in corruption? Entertaining an obvious fiction? ETA: I know, there are some differences between the two situations. Do you recognize there are some similarities too? ---
**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 19, 2019, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5052 "2019-11-19T17:01:11Z")
> [@Barack\_Obama](#): > > It doesn’t matter whether Biden _is_ corrupt or not, what matters is trump is running in 2020 and potentially against Biden. If there was any substantial evidence to warrant such a search it should have been forwarded to a department or source that is not the President. > > If something comes up of Biden doing something wrong, then fuck yeah get him I’m all for kneecapping the guy. Never the less Trump _shouldn’t be forcing foreign entities to **give/find** information on his political opponents._ _psssssst_ You misspelled “give/find/make up”… ---
**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 19, 2019, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5053 "2019-11-19T17:01:27Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As per post #4975, the bonkers thing is to assume that Trump has a leg to stand regarding his excuse that he was investigating corruption. Fighting, no; investigating, yes. Specifically investigating how to get that corruption to work for him. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5054 "2019-11-19T17:02:09Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > _psssssst_ You misspelled “give/find/make up”… He probably left it out because it didn’t happen. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5055 "2019-11-19T17:04:04Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > So when Senate Dems send a letter to Ukraine asking for cooperation into investigations of Americans, they were … what? Not credible? Not seriously interested in corruption? Entertaining an obvious fiction? > > ETA: I know, there are some differences between the two situations. Do you recognize there are some similarities too? > **[The Democratic Letter to Ukraine - FactCheck.org](https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/the-democratic-letter-to-ukraine/)** > > In May 2018, three Democratic senators wrote to the Ukrainian prosecutor general, asking about a report that he had frozen four Ukrainian investigations involving Paul Manafort to avoid angering President Donald Trump. Republicans have called the... > [@](#): > > There are key differences between the Democratic letter and Trump’s actions: > > [ul] > [li]The Democratic letter did not mention U.S. aid to Ukraine but described support for Ukraine building “democratic institutions.” Trump told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a July call that “we do a lot for Ukraine,” but it’s not necessarily “reciprocal,” according to a White House memo of the call. Trump then asked Zelensky to investigate the Bidens and Ukraine’s role in the 2016 election.[/li][li] The Democrats took no action to withhold U.S. aid to Ukraine; Trump admitted that he placed a hold on security assistance to Ukraine the month of the phone call. The situation alarmed the charge d’affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine who expressed concern that security assistance was contingent on Trump’s requests for investigations.[/li][li] The Democratic senators wrote to ask about reports of Ukraine not cooperating with an existing U.S. investigation; Trump was asking Ukraine to open investigations involving a political rival and the 2016 election.[/li][/ul] ---
**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 19, 2019, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5056 "2019-11-19T17:04:11Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you mean here. It sounds like you’re saying that even if it were proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Biden used his position to extort the Ukrainians into firing the prosecutor investigating his son’s company for corruption, that President Trump still wouldn’t be justified in asking the Ukrainians to investigate those corrupt acts. That seems bonkers to me. Have you got something else in mind when you say “the wrongdoings in question”? If there were any reasonable cause for investigation, there is a procedure for initiating such a proceeding. If the President had taken his suspicions though the proper channels and started an investigation in accordance with our MLAT -Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty - I would have had strong suspicions of partisanship but I’d probably, ultimately, concede he had the right. Russia and Ukraine are not countries that operate under the rule of law. They use drummed up investigations as a pretext to rob people they don’t like. Sometimes they even torture and murder them. And I feel it’s unconscionable to deliberately put an American citizen in that kind of danger. Even if they didn’t vote for you. It’s how I would feel if Trump encouraged North Korea to fully investigate and prosecute Otto Warmbier. If Trump took a literal crap on the Resolute Desk ( instead of the figurative deuces he’s been dropping since he was elected ) — The Republicans would claim that he didn’t have a butthole, his energies are in such prefect balance he doesn’t urinate or defecate. And his supporters would believe him. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5057 "2019-11-19T17:08:47Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > He probably left it out because it didn’t happen. Do you have any other explanation then why the Ukrainians dropped the big announcement? [https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/volodymyr-zelensky-fareed-zakaria-ukraine-aid/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/volodymyr-zelensky-fareed-zakaria-ukraine-aid/index.html) > [@](#): > > The New York Times reported on Thursday that Zelensky had planned to announce an investigation into Trump’s political rivals during a September interview on CNN, but those plans had been scrapped once Trump released promised security aid. Zakaria told CNN’s Brooke Baldwin on Thursday that the interview had been months in the making, but it fell apart when the Ukraine scandal began to unfold – though CNN did not cancel it. > “We had been negotiating with President Zelensky and his office for a while, for months, to try to get an interview with him anyway, ever since he was elected President,” Zakaria, host of “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” told Baldwin. > Once news of the whistleblower’s complaint surfaced, “it became clear to us that the interview was off,” he continued. > > The Times reported that the decision to unfreeze the aid to Ukraine erased the need for Zelensky’s televised appearance. > Almost all of Zelensky’s aides supported the planned announcement on the show, one of the officials who debated the issue told the Times. They agreed that American military aid and diplomatic support during upcoming peace talks were worth the risk of seeming to support Trump in the American political process, the paper reported. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5058 "2019-11-19T17:09:22Z")
There was no existing investigation into Biden that Trump was asking Ukraine to cooperate with. Asking for cooperation for a real, legitimate, existing investigation is entirely different from asking a foreign government to start a whole new one, especially into a political opponent, and extra especially when in exchange for military aid. This is not remotely a credible argument. ---
**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, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5059 "2019-11-19T17:10:25Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you mean here. It sounds like you’re saying that even if it were proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Biden used his position to extort the Ukrainians into firing the prosecutor investigating his son’s company for corruption, that President Trump still wouldn’t be justified in asking the Ukrainians to investigate those corrupt acts. That seems bonkers to me. Have you got something else in mind when you say “the wrongdoings in question”? As others have already said, yes, Trump would still be unjustified in the pursuing the actions as he did. There are processes and channels for initiating investigations of American citizens. These processes do not include secret extortion attempts of foreign leaders. I have no issue at all if the justice system wants to look into Biden’s conduct in regard to Ukraine. I have no issue that if such an investigation is ongoing they then ask for their Ukrainian counterparts to provide assistance in that investigation. This inquiry has nothing to do with what Biden may or may not have done. ---
**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, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5060 "2019-11-19T17:10:43Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > 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. But Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richie Neal’s basis for review of these returns is very narrow. He is acting in his oversight capacity. In this case, that duty involves evaluating the IRS policy to audit all presidents’ tax returns to ensure they are being audited appropriately. There is a basis for that from the Nixon years, as noted by Mr. Neal. Included in his letter is a statement that the House Ways and Means Committee "is considering legislative proposals and conducting oversight related to our Federal tax laws, including, but not limited to, the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a President.” This is a legitimate concern, as the history of former President Nixon’s initially lenient IRS audit shows. > [@cmosdes](#): > > 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. But that’s not true. A taxpayer does maintain some “ownership” over their tax returns. If you doubt it, get caught making a mistake on one that inures to your benefit and not that of the IRS. More to the point, this is the defense Trump is raising, that he has a right to protect his returns – so it is germane to the discussion. > [@cmosdes](#): > > 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. I’m not arguing in any way that the law doesn’t have limits or that it can’t be tested. But the statute itself does not say that a justification for the request is necessary. The issue before SCOTUS will be whether Congress has their right of oversight as it has been conducted for numerous public officials since 1924. [Here](https://www.accountingtoday.com/articles/trumps-taxes-1924-law-gives-congress-authority-to-see-returns) is a good discussion about the history of the law, why it is still good law and likely to be upheld by SCOTUS. (Accounting Today) From the article: > [@](#): > > The Trump administration can certainly fight the case in court. But the deep history of this particular provision in the tax code is unequivocal. Sooner or later, the president is going to have to surrender the returns. > [@cmosdes](#): > > 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. Hence the word, “If,” in my original post. I assigned no motives, only wondered if that gave rise to your thinking. We don’t know each other. No need to get shirty. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=252) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=254)