# 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:** 284
**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 26, 2019, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5661 "2019-11-26T00:51:19Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Side question: how do judges manage to write such enormous decisions within such short timeframes, and keep them well-reasoned and well-cited? What kind of help do they have? They have staff attorneys that do most of the heavy research and draft the rulings. The judges then review and finalize their rulings. In my experience, the higher the court, the larger number of dedicated staff attorneys they have. ---
**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 26, 2019, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5662 "2019-11-26T00:56:43Z")
> [@Boycott](#): > > It’s a little reflective when you step back and think that Barr went from working as the Attorney General of such a benign president that a quarter of a century later when he was put forward again for the job people were largely thinking “who”. And now he will go down in infamy as the Attorney General of the most controversial president probably by the end of it. Ohhhh… William Barr was plenty controversial during his time as George H. W. Bush’s AG. Now he’s off-the-charts nuts. [Here](https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-reputational-interests-of-william-barr) is a good overview. (New Yorker) > [@](#): > > Barr’s effort to discredit the Mueller investigation should have brought to mind the not-so-distant history of his first stint as Attorney General, under George H. W. Bush. In 1992, just as Bush was leaving office, he issued, with Barr’s support, pardons for six Reagan Administration officials—including the former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger—who had been either charged for or were convicted of crimes connected with covering up the Iran-Contra affair and its violations of the U.S. Constitution. Weinberger’s pardon came before his case went to trial, and it was commonly believed that it was itself part of another coverup, to prevent the presentation of evidence that would have indicated Bush’s personal involvement in Iran-Contra, when he was Reagan’s Vice-President. Thanks to the pardons, the whole truth was never known. ---
**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 26, 2019, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5663 "2019-11-26T01:03:24Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > Ohhhh… William Barr was plenty controversial during his time as George H. W. Bush’s AG. Now he’s off-the-charts nuts. > > [Here](https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-reputational-interests-of-william-barr) is a good overview. (New Yorker) Dang, you’re smart and well-informed. (Cute, too.) I’m glad you’ve chosen to use your considerable powers for good instead of the Dark Side. 🙂 ---
**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 26, 2019, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5664 "2019-11-26T01:12:54Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > Dang, you’re smart and well-informed. (Cute, too.) I’m glad you’ve chosen to use your considerable powers for good instead of the Dark Side. 🙂 Nice lady you are. 🙂 Thanks. ---
**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 26, 2019, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5665 "2019-11-26T01:14:13Z")
[Charlie Savage](https://twitter.com/charlie_savage/status/1199106253475262467), _NYT_: > [@](#): > > STORY UPDATED: Judge Jackson ruled expansively, saying that former national-security aides (like John Bolton, although she did not name him) are equally required to appear if subpoenaed. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2019, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5666 "2019-11-26T01:43:54Z")
> [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > [Charlie Savage](https://twitter.com/charlie_savage/status/1199106253475262467), _NYT_: I want to be excited too. But it doesn’t matter. None of them is going to testify, and if they do it won’t matter. The Senate won’t convict. All of this is only for history\*. (\*and maybe to encourage/enrage Democratic voters in 2020 although others here disagree) ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2019, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5667 "2019-11-26T02:29:22Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > They have staff attorneys that do most of the heavy research and draft the rulings. The judges then review and finalize their rulings. In my experience, the higher the court, the larger number of dedicated staff attorneys they have. It’s also incredibly prestigious for a lawyer to get a job clerking for a federal judge or (gasp!) Supreme Court judge, since these judges are people nominated by a President and approved by the Senate (I’ve been in the chambers of two federal judges. Both had the senate’s roll call vote for their appointment framed and hanging on the wall). These clerkships usually go to people just graduating from law school at or near the top of their class. At the Supreme Court level, the clerks will come from the top schools like Harvard or Yale. federal judges attract top schools, too. After a few years writing drafts and doing research for a federal level judge, a lawyer can write their meal ticket to any of the biggest and most renowned law firms. ---
**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 26, 2019, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5668 "2019-11-26T04:09:47Z")
The Daily Beast: Oligarch: Giuliani Offered to Help With Legal Problems, if I Helped Pressure Ukraine. [https://www.thedailybeast.com/dmytro-firtash-giuliani-offered-to-help-with-legal-problems-if-i-helped-pressure-ukraine?source=cheats&via=rss](https://www.thedailybeast.com/dmytro-firtash-giuliani-offered-to-help-with-legal-problems-if-i-helped-pressure-ukraine?source=cheats&via=rss) A Ukrainian oligarch who faces extradition to the US on racketeering and bribery charges says Rudy offered to help if he helped dig up dirt on the Bidens, according to the article. Not a very reliable witness, granted. Maybe he has documents? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2019, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5669 "2019-11-26T04:37:39Z")
Guys, sorry. I was finishing up a major mural project and didn’t get to check in on the news. Fill me in: So a judge ruled everyone who is subpoenaed has to obey it, but it’ll be appealed all the way up to God Almighty Himself, right? And general vibes are that the Dems won’t want to wait it out because they feel like their case is strong enough as it stands? What about the inclusion and accusations against Moo-nes? Regarding the SCOTUS stay for the tax returns– Congress agreed to a 10 day stay “while the court decided if they will hear the case.” That was Nov 15 and ended today, the 25th, and the SCOTUS handed down another stay because for some reason, they can’t decide if they will hear the case or not. …does Congress have a say-so in this? Can they not say “hey bud we were cool with you out of respect for the court but we’re going to kindly go with the previous NUMEROUS court judgments and stand on those rulings and collect.” Or say “ok but here’s how long you have to decide.” Or can the court just sit on this forever? Is this some way that conservatives judges–who cannot outright rule against standing law, legitimate adjudication, and the constitution–back-door their way into “not letting it happen” anyway? I mean, they can’t take this case, right? They can’t rule against established law and against the constitution in favor of protecting a president, right? What happens next? ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2019, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5670 "2019-11-26T04:46:22Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > I want to be excited too. But it doesn’t matter. None of them is going to testify, and if they do it won’t matter. The Senate won’t convict. > > All of this is only for history\*. > > (\*and maybe to encourage/enrage Democratic voters in 2020 although others here disagree) I want every moment of this, every smirk, grin and lie forever recorded. I see a lot of reasons and good in this. This is not the time to just give them the mulligan and see what they do next! My attitude is I don’t care in the slightest if the senate won’t convict. The scary “idea” of it is actually holding sway above the event itself and many are getting spooked. They have lost the idea of public contest of justice meaning anything. The reason you play the game is so you find out what happens. Ask John Kennedy what he’s thinking tonight. You want to let him crawl back to his hole and fuck democracy? It means something to strip people like graham, mcconnel, of any moral or ethical cover, no matter what happens. I’m a taxpayer and I think I am owed it. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2019, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5671 "2019-11-26T06:26:48Z")
The post-hearing polls are coming in, and they’re not looking good for Trump: SurveyUSA (an A-rated poller per 538): Net 9% margin for impeachment YouGov (a B- rated poller per 538): Net 8% margin for impeachment YouGov again: Net 3% margin for impeachment and removal ---
**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 26, 2019, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5672 "2019-11-26T13:15:19Z")
No, \*\*asahi \*\*didn’t write this. But he could have. My emphasis. [ **How Trump Survives** \*The lesson of past impeachments might be that it takes disasters, not just scandals, to remove a president from office. \*](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/opinion/impeachment-trump.html?emc=rss&partner=rss) > [@](#): > > This supposition is based on an admittedly thin historical record. We have exactly two impeachment case studies in the modern era, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon, which involved very different fact patterns and unspooled in very different ways. > > The differences are grist for competing partisan interpretations: Liberals can argue that Clinton survived the process and Nixon didn’t because Clinton’s crimes were minor things and Nixon’s met the “high crimes” bar, while conservatives can argue that Clinton survived and Nixon didn’t because Republicans were more honorable in 1974 and Democrats more partisan in 1998. > > But the simplest explanation is that Nixon didn’t survive because his second term featured a series of economic shocks — summarized on Twitter by the political theorist Jacob Levy as “an oil crisis, a stock market crash, stagflation and recession” — while Clinton’s second term was the most recent peak of American power, pride and optimism. In a given impeachment debate, under this theory, neither the nature of the crimes nor the state of the political parties matter as much as whether an embattled president is seen as presiding over stability or crisis, over good times or potential ruin. > > To the extent that this reductive theory is true — and clearly it’s at least somewhat true — we shouldn’t be surprised at Trump’s survival, and we shouldn’t assume that it can be explained only by polarization or hyper-partisanship, Fox News or fake news, or for that matter by the “that’s how you get Trump” progressive overreach that I tend to critique. > > Of course it matters that Trump’s party is craven and debased; of course it matters that the Democrats have swung to an ideological extreme. But maybe it matters more to Trump’s not good but stable — amazingly stable — approval ratings that he is presiding over a period of general stability, at home and abroad, which would have to fall apart for the supermajority that turned on Nixon to finally turn on him. > … If you’re like me, you may have thrown up in your mouth a little when you read that… ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2019, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5673 "2019-11-26T13:24:08Z")
It feels really mean to **asahi** to compare him to Ross Douthat. He’s a doomsayer, not a hack. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2019, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5674 "2019-11-26T13:34:36Z")
It isn’t that hard to imagine. When people are comfortable, they don’t want a revolution. Now, this is an extreme way of putting it, but that’s human nature. The people posting in here have at least some interest in politics. Most people don’t. They just want to live their life as comfortably as they can. Revolution, or let’s tone it down to political upheaval, comes when people are uncomfortable. When they’re worried about themselves and their families at a personal level. And in the West, since most people are generally pretty secure in terms of basic necessities, it ends up coming down to the broader economy, and how it affects our own personal jobs and life. When the economy is good, our jobs are secure, perhaps our RRSP/401Ks are growing, the stock market is growing, etc. then people don’t really want unusual change represented by an impeachment. If Trump wins reelection, then it will be because of his unshakeable base plus a firm economy. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2019, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5675 "2019-11-26T13:56:08Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > I want to be excited too. But it doesn’t matter. None of them is going to testify, and if they do it won’t matter. The Senate won’t convict. > > All of this is only for history\*. > > (\*and maybe to encourage/enrage Democratic voters in 2020 although others here disagree) I agree that it’s unlikely that Trump will actually be removed from office by an impeachment. The Republicans in the Senate will simply ignore any crimes he’s committed. So the real goal here is to hold those Republicans accountable. The goal of the impeachment hearings should be making clear to the general public that Trump has committed crimes. And then making it clear to the general public that the Republicans are willing to allow him to commit crimes. Then the general public will have its opportunity to render its own verdict on Election Day. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2019, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5676 "2019-11-26T14:02:40Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > If you’re like me, you may have thrown up in your mouth a little when you read that… I disagree. I think the fundamental difference in the outcomes of Nixon’s and Clinton’s impeachments was that Nixon was guilty of impeachable offenses and Clinton wasn’t. Trump and the Republicans are fooling themselves if they think they can follow the example of Clinton and the Democrats. The voters didn’t punish Clinton or the Democrats who supporting him because they didn’t see a legitimate case for impeachment being presented. ---
**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 26, 2019, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5677 "2019-11-26T14:47:25Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I disagree. I think the fundamental difference in the outcomes of Nixon’s and Clinton’s impeachments was that Nixon was guilty of impeachable offenses and Clinton wasn’t. Well, if the Clinton impeachment trial happened today, I’m reasonably sure that most Dem Senators would vote to convict. Look at Al Franken. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2019, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5678 "2019-11-26T15:34:29Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > The post-hearing polls are coming in, and they’re not looking good for Trump: > > SurveyUSA (an A-rated poller per 538): Net 9% margin for impeachment > YouGov (a B- rated poller per 538): Net 8% margin for impeachment > YouGov again: Net 3% margin for impeachment and removal Just reading off 538, but these really aren’t looking good for Trump: SSRS (A/B): Net 7% margin for impeachment and removal Morning Consult (B/C): Net 5% margin for impeachment Morning Consult: Net 9% margin for impeachment That last one has independents at a net 10% margin in support of impeachment, which has got to be worrying for the GOP. ---
**Author:** ![Guest-starring\_Id](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guest-starring_id/32/21736_2.png) [@Guest-starring\_Id](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guest-starring_Id)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2019, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5679 "2019-11-26T15:36:05Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Rudy is just an echo chamber for random thoughts that come out of his mouth with no filter, that may pertain to him or others, based on transient anxiety states he experiences. That was a very beautifully expressed observation. Thank-you. > [@drad\_dog](#): > > I want every moment of this, every smirk, grin and lie forever recorded. I see a lot of reasons and good in this. This is not the time to just give them the mulligan and see what they do next! > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > So the real goal here is to hold those Republicans accountable. The goal of the impeachment hearings should be making clear to the general public that Trump has committed crimes. And then making it clear to the general public that the Republicans are willing to allow him to commit crimes. > > Then the general public will have its opportunity to render its own verdict on Election Day. +1, +1…Indeed - force the Senate’s hand and show for posterity their enabling of such a corrupt administration. The process has to be played out. ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2019, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5680 "2019-11-26T15:45:55Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > I want every moment of this, every smirk, grin and lie forever recorded. I see a lot of reasons and good in this. This is not the time to just give them the mulligan and see what they do next! > > My attitude is I don’t care in the slightest if the senate won’t convict. The scary “idea” of it is actually holding sway above the event itself and many are getting spooked. They have lost the idea of public contest of justice meaning anything. The reason you play the game is so you find out what happens. Ask John Kennedy what he’s thinking tonight. You want to let him crawl back to his hole and fuck democracy? > > It means something to strip people like graham, mcconnel, of any moral or ethical cover, no matter what happens. **I’m a taxpayer and I think I am owed it**. Others have seconded this notion but I want to especially highlight that last part. Lots of people seem to think the House is ignoring its other duties by devoting so much time to these hearings. Don’t they realize this is one of the highest duties they can perform? A president has allegedly abused the power of the office for personal gain. If the House ignores it, we may as well be a banana republic where elected leaders can ransack the country at will. I live in Illinois, where a Dem governor pulled this shit and got 14 years in a federal pen. That’s how it’s supposed to work, folks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=283) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=285)