# 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:** 254
**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, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5061 "2019-11-19T17:10:52Z")
> [@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? I know that there are some differences between a rabid wolverine and my friend’s pet ferret Winkles. Do you recognize that there are some similarities too? ---
**Author:** ![Wolf333](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolf333/32/3460_2.png) [@Wolf333](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wolf333)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5062 "2019-11-19T17:19:35Z")
> [@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”? Yes, for the same reason that I think police should follow the law when investigating a crime. ---
**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 19, 2019, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5063 "2019-11-19T17:31:26Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > So when Senate Dems send a letter to Ukraine asking for cooperation into investigations of Americans, they were … what? Are you trying to mischaracterize the letter? Here’s what really happened. DoJ was investigating Paul Manafort and others. There were reports that Trump tried to tell Ukraine not to cooperate with those investigations. The Democratic senators wrote to a Ukrainian official asking if he has curtailed such investigations at the behest of the White House or others. I think anyone who isn’t carrying water for Trump recognizes that this letter is nothing like you’ve portrayed it. The only thing consistent is the White House’s corrupt intent on using law enforcement investigations for their own political gains – either to investigate, or not investigate. Standing up against that corruption is not its own form of corruption. ---
**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, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5064 "2019-11-19T17:32:01Z")
> [@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. > > 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. I agree with all you said wholeheartedly, and I don’t underestimate the venality of Kavanaugh, Alito and their ilk. Agree also that if SCOTUS rules 8-1 or 9-0 in favor, it will only be because the scumsters (love!) knew they didn’t have 5 votes. Like you, I expect Roberts to be the swinger in this instance (behind closed doors as you suggest). But my reason for this belief is a little more specific than yours on this point. Roberts will shortly be sitting as the judge in an impeachment proceeding. He can’t go against what is the plain letter of the law in this instance as understood by, well… almost everyone, and maintain his charade of impartiality – which matters to him a great deal. Honestly, that’s the _only_ reason I expect him to swing his 5th vote toward the rule of law this time. Should the GOP come out of this shit show with some – any – thin veneer of credibility, I expect all 5 to do exactly as they and their Federalist Society masters bid them. Hell, they may not even any longer feel they need the thin veneer of credibility. As much as anything I mourned on the night of November 8, 2016, it was what I knew would be the total loss of a fair, impartial SCOTUS for at least a generation. Our chickens have come home to roost. It sickens me how few voters understood the importance of this, couldn’t see the writing on the wall after Moscow Mitch’s twisting of traditional rules to deny Merrick Garland a vote. And here we are. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5065 "2019-11-19T17:33:21Z")
It is well known that corruption had played an unfortunate role in the political life of Ukraine. No doubt, the Leader’s zeal to avoid that contamination led him to demand investigations into that rampant corruption. We may rest assured that the investigation into the Bidens was merely one of many, many such investigations inspired by the Presidents leadership and zeal. I suppose we could rest even _more_ assured if HD would favor us with a list of those many, many investigations that did not include the Bidens. Maybe just the top ten, or so? Five? One? ---
**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, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5066 "2019-11-19T17:35:52Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > 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. So the justification is that in the past someone didn’t audit Nixon’s tax records thoroughly, so this congress going to audit Trump’s returns without any specified evidence there was a lenient auditing of them? I don’t agree with that logic. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > 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. Which means the justification they aren’t his is not valid and hopefully the actual justification is valid. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > 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. I know these topics are fraught with looking for political motives and such. My question was not. You could have asked if that was my motivation. You seemed to be looking for more in my question than was there and were trying to answer an underlying thought that I did not have. Sorry for being shirty. If I said, “If you were beating your wife last week you need to stop”, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t just think, “Well, I’m not beating my wife, so that statement is of no concern to me.” ---
**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, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5067 "2019-11-19T17:57:22Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > So the justification is that in the past someone didn’t audit Nixon’s tax records thoroughly, so this congress going to audit Trump’s returns without any specified evidence there was a lenient auditing of them? I don’t agree with that logic. > > Which means the justification they aren’t his is not valid and hopefully the actual justification is valid. Did you read the article I cited? It makes the legislative history of this statute clear. Trump has a pretty steep uphill climb. > [@cmosdes](#): > > I know these topics are fraught with looking for political motives and such. My question was not. You could have asked _ **if** _ that was my motivation. You seemed to be looking for more in my question than was there and were trying to answer an underlying thought that I did not have. I think that’s exactly what I did. I’m not sure why the word, ‘if,’ is meaningful when you say it but not when I do. > [@cmosdes](#): > > Sorry for being shirty. If I said, “If you were beating your wife last week you need to stop”, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t just think, “Well, I’m not beating my wife, so that statement is of no concern to me.” I’m sorry if you assumed I was ascribing such a motive to you, but I really was asking. I couldn’t think of another reason why you would be so concerned that a public official was being made to comply with legitimate oversight that is well established in the history of our nation. If you need that to be my failing, I’m ok with that. I would only add the point that if Trump had released his tax returns as he repeatedly promised he would, and in accordance with the custom and practice of all presidents over the past 40 years, then there would have been no need for us to go through this nastiness at all. ---
**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, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5068 "2019-11-19T18:29:10Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > Did you read the article I cited? It makes the legislative history of this statute clear. Trump has a pretty steep uphill climb. I wasn’t interested in the statute, honestly. I asked about the 4th amendment protections. I know the statute exists and I know it is an uphill battle for Trump to circumvent it. One argument, I would think, is that he does still have some protections against an overzealous legislative body. I’m not saying that is the case here, but I am saying that just because it is a statute doesn’t mean other protections aren’t available. I asked about one that might be available. I truly hope Congress gets a look at his tax returns, but only if done in alignment with the democratic principles we have in this country. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > I think that’s exactly what I did. I’m not sure why the word, ‘if,’ is meaningful when you say it but not when I do. You didn’t ask. “If” isn’t the word you need to focus on here. You made a statement based on a presumption or guess as to the motivation. Using the word “if” doesn’t make that go away. I see no question. Only a statement. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > I couldn’t think of another reason why you would be so concerned that a public official was being made to comply with legitimate oversight that is well established in the history of our nation. If you need that to be my failing, I’m ok with that. Do you always assume that the only reason anyone does something or asks questions is limited to the reasons you can think of? Because if so, that is kind of a big failing. Where did I express concern? It was a legal question. Period. You are ascribing motives and now concern to me that do not exist. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > I would only add the point that if Trump had released his tax returns as he repeatedly promised he would, and in accordance with the custom and practice of all presidents over the past 40 years, then there would have been no need for us to go through this nastiness at all. You do like the word “if.” If pigs had wings, they would fly. And??? It doesn’t matter what every other president did or didn’t do. Trump is a liar, clearly, but I don’t think that justifies an intrusion into his private life. Just because he said he would release them and hasn’t doesn’t give congress the right to go look anyway. Do you think it does? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5069 "2019-11-19T18:55:07Z")
Latest Trump defenses: 1. All witnesses against Trump are “never Trumpers” and are biased. Any witnesses in favor of Trump do not have to testify under oath because this is a sham. They can say what they want via twitter. 2. Nobody has asked witnesses directly if this was bribery. Nobody has said in depositions that Trump is guilty of bribery. Therefore Trump is innocent of everything. ---
**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, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5070 "2019-11-19T18:58:44Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > \ > > You do like the word “if.” If pigs had wings, they would fly. And??? It doesn’t matter what every other president did or didn’t do. Trump is a liar, clearly, but I don’t think that justifies an intrusion into his private life. Just because he said he would release them and hasn’t doesn’t give congress the right to go look anyway. **Do you think it does?** I do. I say this as a former public servant who was subjected to a number of intrusions I would not have endured other than the fact that I chose to accept a job in the public sector. If a private citizen wishes to retain his/her privacy to the full extent offered under the law, then don’t seek public service. ---
**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, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5071 "2019-11-19T19:06:39Z")
Okay, after watching the entirety of today’s hearing: I don’t think we learned anything we didn’t know before from the transcripts of closed door testimony. There was less grandstanding today than there was in last week’s hearings. The Republicans didn’t seem interested in discussing or confirming the facts that these witnesses were called to share. Rather they seemed interested in reading conspiracy theories into the record (looking directly at you, Jordan). More harping on “secret” meetings and “unfair” processes. No rebuttal that the meetings are private, but represented by both parties, or that the process is both following rules that Republican introduced while they were in power and gives more rights to the opposition than former impeachment proceedings did. More characterizations of the proceedings as a “circus” and a “performance”. The only circus- like performance I saw was the Republicans contorting themselves into knots to avoid commenting on substance and facts and to make sure they worked in all of the Republican talking points. More quibbling that the Democrats “changed” the charge from quid pro quo to bribery. I wonder why no one pointed out that “quid pro quo” (this for that) is pretty much Latin for “bribery”? Vindman reading the end of his opening statement again at the conclusion of questioning was quite powerful. ---
**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, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5072 "2019-11-19T19:06:48Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > I do. I say this as a former public servant who was subjected to a number of intrusions I would not have endured other than the fact that I chose to accept a job in the public sector. > > If a private citizen wishes to retain his/her privacy to the full extent offered under the law, then don’t seek public service. I’m from Oregon, too. Now you have me wondering in what capacity you were doing your public service. Thanks for the discussion and answers. I don’t think the answer as to why the 4th amendment doesn’t apply is clear from this, but I understand the sentiment that some people think public servants are not entitled to that protection. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5073 "2019-11-19T19:20:10Z")
They _are_ entitled, but the operative word is “reasonable”. Public office is public trust, it is entirely reasonable that enhanced scrutiny is expected. The bigger the office, the bigger the trust, the more the scrutiny. ---
**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, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5074 "2019-11-19T19:41:11Z")
I thought the Right hated entitlements? Seriously though, there is an easy way to make sure you never have to face congressional oversight, and that is don’t run for president. Otherwise take it up with the constitution and the concept of checks and balances that our system of government is based on. ---
**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, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5075 "2019-11-19T20:00:33Z")
> [@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. There’s an absolute defense against libel: Having told the truth. Likewise, there’s an absolute defense against having people look into your finances: Don’t commit financial crimes. The Republican party, at least when I was growing up, was the party of “If you don’t want to do the time, don’t do the crime.” And it was the Democratic party that felt like there were justifications for unlawful activity. I don’t where you are on that question. But, as a Republican, Trump’s just a big whiner who was too lazy and ignorant to know what he was getting into. And now he’s put seven of his friends into jail, out of his incompetence and ignorance. There’s nothing laudible about that. ---
**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 19, 2019, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5076 "2019-11-19T20:20:13Z")
It’s asinine to think that Joe Biden forced the removal of a Ukrainian prosecutor to spare his son from legal jeopardy. Many wanted the former prosecutor gone, including most EU countries. The issue wasn’t that he might prosecute someone, it was that the former prosecutor was known to be corrupt. As simple as that. The international community didn’t want corruption in high levels of the Ukrainian government. I’m not sure whether the old prosecutor was any more or less corrupt than Bill Barr, but it was well known that he was not an honest man. ---
**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, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5077 "2019-11-19T20:39:26Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > There was no existing investigation into Biden that Trump was asking Ukraine to cooperate with. … That’s only the case because Joe Biden got it quashed a couple of years earlier, by extorting the Ukranians with $1B in aid to fire the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma. ---
**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, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5078 "2019-11-19T20:41:47Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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) I don’t see how this relates to the claim that he asked them to “make up information”. ---
**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, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5079 "2019-11-19T20:43:54Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That’s only the case because Joe Biden got it quashed a couple of years earlier, by extorting the Ukranians with $1B in aid to fire the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma. Normally, evidence free conspiracy theories are presented with the courtesy of a cite. A bullshit whack a loon cite that often gives viruses… but at least it’s a cite. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2019, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5080 "2019-11-19T20:49:37Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That’s only the case because Joe Biden got it quashed a couple of years earlier, by extorting the Ukranians with $1B in aid to fire the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma. Work in the Shape-shifting Lizard People, and you could land yourself a job at the White House! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=253) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=255)