# 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:** 288
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5741 "2019-11-27T20:03:23Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > Not to diminish your post in any way, but I feel sad that this thread has gone from “Holy shit, can you believe what Trump did?” to “Guess what? Schiff’s a vegan.” Sort of a metaphor for the whole damn story. Yeah, I know what you mean. It’s all become so quotidian. But as a vegetarian and a St. Louisan, I thought that was a cool story. ---
**Author:** ![mjmlabs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mjmlabs/32/69_2.png) [@mjmlabs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mjmlabs)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5742 "2019-11-27T20:20:34Z")
> [@OttoDaFe](#): > > MHO, it’s far, far better to eschew steak altogether than to desecrate it by cremation. Does he put ketchup on it as well? Gosh. How’d you ever guess? Yes. Yes he does: [The Trump-Ketchup Controversy](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldurkheimer/2017/05/22/the-trump-ketchup-controversy/#79313164769e) > **[Opinion: Actually, How Donald Trump Eats His Steak Matters](https://www.eater.com/2017/2/28/14753248/trump-steak-well-done-ketchup-personality)** > > It’s okay if you like your steak well done. It’s not okay if he does. > **[Trump likes his steaks well-done with ketchup — here's how the other...](https://www.businessinsider.com/how-presidents-eat-steak-2018-2)** > > Trump's steak preferences have been criticized, but many other presidents have also liked their steaks well-done. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5743 "2019-11-27T20:22:15Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Here is my pulled out of my ass guess as to what Bolton’s motivation might be. > > I think Bolton is more of an ideologue than he is a partisan. I think he does what he does and takes the actions he takes based on the fact that he really believes that that is what is best for the country. I think he’s totally wrong and batshit insane, but I think he generally believes what he says. Along these lines I believe he realizes the Trump is very bad for the security of the United States, and would be very pleased to see Trump kicked out of office and run out of town on a rail. On the other hand he also realizes that he only has a career on the right side of the spectrum, and if he gets cast as a deep state never Trumper he’ll never be able to work again. So he wants to spill the beans, but he wants to be forced to do it. That way he can say, that he would never willingly betray the president, but once he was put under oath, he just had to tell the truth. > > Basically he’s like that sympathetic guard who releases the hero from his holding cell but asks the hero to hit him in the face a few times and tie him up so he doesn’t get in trouble. You are CORRECT sir! ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5744 "2019-11-27T20:47:11Z")
> [@Bumbershoot](#): > > Looks like Trump is throwing Rudy under the bus, in an interview with Bill O’Reilly: > > [Trump Denies Sending Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine for Biden Probe](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-26/trump-denies-sending-rudy-giuliani-to-ukraine-for-biden-probe) What if Giuliani stumbled upon the whole Ukraine/Biden thing as a result of his involvement in other matters in that part of the world, and that he originated the idea of going after Biden? Then he brought it to Trump earlier this year, and of course Trump immediately got on board. When I read this article in that context, my first thought is that Trump is saying to O’Reilly that he did not have Giuliani go out cold and try to find stuff starting last year. That is what Trump means when he said he didn’t direct him. We know of course from the Zelensky conversation that Trump wanted the Ukranian to call Rudy, but that doesn’t contradict Trump not directing Rudy from the beginning. Trump: > [@](#): > > “Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.” > Trump later said: “I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I’m sure you will figure it out.” Assuming for the sake of argument that Trump is not in fact a criminal mastermind, but instead a hapless, bumbling idiot\*, then the above quote fits in with this idea. This certainly doesn’t absolve Trump of wrongdoing, and he should still be thrown out on his ass… \*Which of course goes without saying. ETA: I only know what O’Reilly and Trump said in the interview from what is in this CNN article. ---
**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 27, 2019, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5745 "2019-11-27T21:04:26Z")
Benefit of the doubt is there for those that deserve it. You don’t get it when all you do is lie 24/7. ---
**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 27, 2019, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5746 "2019-11-27T21:06:53Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > What if Giuliani stumbled upon the whole Ukraine/Biden thing as a result of his involvement in other matters in that part of the world, and that he originated the idea of going after Biden? Then he brought it to Trump earlier this year, and of course Trump immediately got on board. When I read this article in that context, my first thought is that Trump is saying to O’Reilly that he did not have Giuliani go out cold and try to find stuff starting last year. That is what Trump means when he said he didn’t direct him. We know of course from the Zelensky conversation that Trump wanted the Ukranian to call Rudy, but that doesn’t contradict Trump not directing Rudy from the beginning. Literal truth is a very effective method of lying. My car doesn’t have a gas cap, for example. Q: Did you put sugar in the gas tank? A: Didn’t touch the gas cap. Whether Trump was being literal or lying, who knows. > [@](#): > > This certainly doesn’t absolve Trump of wrongdoing, and he should still be thrown out on his ass… Yep. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5747 "2019-11-27T21:15:15Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > OK, since this thread has devolved into bad meat jokes, I’ll risk a lightning rod sub-topic. > > Censure. > > Since we know the Senate won’t remove Trump in an impeachment, would a strong, bipartisan (say, 50 House Pubs and 15 GOP Senators) censure vote be a better outcome (with “better” defined as “more likely to help the Dem candidate win next year”) than impeach-and-acquit? > > Of course, as I write this I realize I’ve made a logical mistake. No Pubs will vote for censure. If they know they’re going to “win” on impeachment, why would they concede anything? They know they can spin a senate acquittal into “complete exoneration,” so why go on record with even the slightest suggestion Trump did anything wrong? > > But maybe I’m missing something. And I’m NOT advocating for censure – I firmly believe Trump’s actions in this matter should disqualify him from office. But I can read the writing on the wall, so I’m curious what others think about the c-word. Yeah, I think your fourth paragraph adequately sums up the problem with this idea. The Chicago Tribune came out with an editorial in favor of censure yesterday, which motivated me to finally get around to cancelling my subscription. Really should have done that long ago. ---
**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 27, 2019, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5748 "2019-11-27T21:40:30Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > Yeah, I think your fourth paragraph adequately sums up the problem with this idea. The Chicago Tribune came out with an editorial in favor of censure yesterday, which motivated me to finally get around to cancelling my subscription. Really should have done that long ago. That’s the editorial that got me thinking about it! Here’s the sentence that steamed my shorts: To impeach and expel represents the overturning of an election, and thus the effective suspension of our democratic system due to dire emergency. The election which would supposedly be overturned by this impeachment and removal happened three years ago! According to this logic, no president should ever be removed, no matter what they do, because it’s a “suspension of our democratic system.” I guess they believe that, in case of a “dire emergency,” it would be worth it, but seeking (but ultimately failing) to leverage the power of the presidency for personal political gain doesn’t qualify. Nor do obstruction of justice and witness intimidation to cover up that effort. Never mind that all that was done _to gain an advantage in the next election_ – we must protect the democratic process! ---
**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 27, 2019, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5749 "2019-11-27T21:46:23Z")
Right wing media, November 2016: we are a republic, not a democracy! Right wing media, November 2019: we can’t allow threats to our democracy! ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5750 "2019-11-27T21:58:35Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > That’s the editorial that got me thinking about it! Here’s the sentence that steamed my shorts: > > To impeach and expel represents the overturning of an election, and thus the effective suspension of our democratic system due to dire emergency. The fuck? It is using our democratic system to remove the dire emergency. ---
**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 27, 2019, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5751 "2019-11-27T22:06:50Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > The fuck? It is using our democratic system to remove the dire emergency. Despite that befuddling “logic,” I’m not cancelling my Chicago Tribune subscription, because they also publish Steve Chapman, who writes: “If Trump is not impeached and removed, the message will be that presidents can get always with virtually anything. If he isn’t held fully accountable for his abuses, he will set a new low standard for acceptable conduct. And we can expect the same, if not worse, from future presidents.” He’s no liberal by any stretch, so his consistent and insightful criticisms of this administration carry even more weight. ---
**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 27, 2019, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5752 "2019-11-27T22:13:05Z")
Bolton could still have an effect on the impeachment proceedings without testifying as part of the inquiry. His book could reveal details of impeachable conduct. He could also potentially be compelled to appear in the Senate trial. From [_Los Angeles Times_](https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-11-22/bolton-dangling-testimony): > [@](#): > > Calling Bolton to testify in a Senate trial might avoid a court fight. The Constitution specifies that impeachment trials of a president are presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. And if Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. rules that Bolton should testify, that might resolve the legal issues. > > But that path might also bring additional risk since the House members presenting the impeachment case would not have prior testimony from Bolton to flesh out his account in advance. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5753 "2019-11-27T22:45:02Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > You do realize that this precedent goes for both sides going forward right? No more oversight means no more oversight in either direction. > > Or are you all of a sudden going to have an epiphany about executive authority and oversight once a Democrat is elected president? I hear this one a lot, but it doesn’t wash. When and if a Dem tries the same kind of crap, the Republicans will scream bloody murder and any accusations of hypocrisy will have as much impact on them as current such accusations do. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2019, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5754 "2019-11-28T00:48:48Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Benefit of the doubt is there for those that deserve it. > > You don’t get it when all you do is lie 24/7. No, um, doubt. Trump is that rather rare individual where it is much more sensible to start with the notion that he is lying, and then maybe try to investigate if he’s telling the truth . But to be clear, I’m not trying to give him any benefit. It’s kinda like the saying a broken clock is correct two times a day. Trump lies so much, that it’s inevitable that occasionally something comes out of his mouth that is actually true, not matter how far-fetched it seems. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2019, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5755 "2019-11-28T00:52:38Z")
Continuing my from previous post on Trump directing Giuliani… Since as far back as the NATO kerfuffle in 2018, where if you remember Trump briefly considered, or at least brought up, the idea of leaving NATO because countries weren’t paying their fair share, we’ve known Trump has an aversion to other countries “cheating” the U.S. out of money. Trump is happy as president pretty much ignoring the rest of the world except when he has to go to a global summit, or lay a wreath at Flanders Field. But then he gets wind of the fact that Ukraine might be getting millions of dollars in military aid, and his ears perk up. Mark Sandy, the only person from the OMB to [testify](https://www.vox.com/2019/11/27/20985454/impeachment-trump-ukraine-aid-timeline-news) behind closed doors to impeachment investigators: > [@](#): > > As Sandy tells it, his involvement with the Ukraine saga began on June 19, when he “heard that the president had seen a media report” about hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid for Ukraine, and that “he had questions.” > > Sandy can’t remember what the exact media report was, but one that fits the description is this Washington Examiner piece on that date, headlined: “Pentagon to send $250M in weapons to Ukraine.” So this may be when the military aid for Ukraine first caught Trump’s attention. > … > After this initial June inquiry, word trickled down that Trump wanted a hold on the Ukraine aid. Suppose, just suppose, that after hearing about this, Trump sees a way to actually do something as president, and it’s based on the one thing he measures his worth by: money. He demands a hold be put on the aid until he can look into it, and being the master of the art of the deal, can then decide whether it’s a good idea and makes sense for the U.S. Only after this does Giuliani come to Trump with his master plan to take down Biden. Trump thinks, why the hell not, and then has his call with Zelensky. He is both truly concerned about a corrupt (in his head) Ukraine maybe getting aid it doesn’t deserve, _and_ now interested in political advantage that can be gained with the whole Biden thing. A key thing here is when did Giuliani go to Trump with the Biden angle? If it was before Trump heard about the aid, then that delivers a huge blow to the above. Ah, but what if it was after?! Is this completely far-fetched? I’ve only put about as much time into thinking about it as it took me to write it down. But I would not say the answer to that question is a definitive “yes”. One way of course to know more about what happened is to get others involved to testify. But no, in the rush to get the impeachment over before Xmas, the Dems decided to only go through the motions to a pretty big degree, and to just look like they were doing there job vis-a-vis impeachment. I’m pretty sure of one thing though: even if the above is totally nuts, it’s what we’re gonna here once the senate trial (hopefully) starts. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2019, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5756 "2019-11-28T01:35:05Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > … > Since as far back as the NATO kerfuffle in 2018, where if you remember Trump briefly considered, or at least brought up, the idea of leaving NATO because countries weren’t paying their fair share, we’ve known Trump has an aversion to other countries “cheating” the U.S. out of money. > > …Suppose, just suppose, that after hearing about this, Trump sees a way to actually do something as president, and it’s based on the one thing he measures his worth by: money. He demands a hold be put on the aid until he can look into it, and being the master of the art of the deal, can then decide whether it’s a good idea and makes sense for the U.S. Only after this does Giuliani come to Trump with his master plan to take down Biden. … A problem with this theory is the timeline: **May 23 2019:** The Defense Department testifies to the relevant congressional committees that their extensive study of the matter had determined that Ukraine had “made sufficient progress on anti-corruption efforts to merit the [release of] the [previously-approved by Congress] security funds.”\* **June 18 2019:** The Pentagon announces that the $250-million aid package will go to Ukraine.\* **June 19 2019:** Trump (very possibly) sees a _Washington Examiner_ story stating that the money is going to Ukraine. Say that Trump, all-around-law-abiding guy who hates corruption in all its forms, says to his staff ‘what about this $250 million going to Ukraine? We just handing this over? Putin tells me Ukraine is mega-corrupt! We shouldn’t just hand that money over!’ And his staff, doing a quick check, says ‘Mr. President, the Pentagon did an extensive study to be sure the corruption problem is taken care of sufficiently to merit handing over the money; they briefed Congress on the progress Ukraine has made in getting rid of corruption and are satisfied they’re doing well.’ And then Trump might say ‘who cares, I don’t believe the Pentagon have any idea what they’re doing, Putin says Ukraine is corrupt and that’s enough for me.’ …All that seems plausible----but it’s not quite the same thing as ‘Trump was only concerned with fighting corruption.’ That’s not believable because Trump would have been told that his own Defense Department had looked into it and decided that corruption wasn’t really an issue. \*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/23/trump-mulvaneys-claim-that-corruption-concerns-held-up-ukraine-aid/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/23/trump-mulvaneys-claim-that-corruption-concerns-held-up-ukraine-aid/) ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2019, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5757 "2019-11-28T02:03:26Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > A problem with this theory is the timeline: > > **May 23 2019:** The Defense Department testifies to the relevant congressional committees that their extensive study of the matter had determined that Ukraine had “made sufficient progress on anti-corruption efforts to merit the [release of] the [previously-approved by Congress] security funds.”\* So the Defense Department and the committees have this info. How does this detract from what I said? I didn’t bring up corruption, I brought up the possibility that Trump just didn’t want Ukraine to get aid until he looked into himself. > [@](#): > > **June 18 2019:** The Pentagon announces that the $250-million aid package will go to Ukraine.\* > > **June 19 2019:** Trump (very possibly) sees a _Washington Examiner_ story stating that the money is going to Ukraine. Essentially what I linked to in my Vox link. > [@](#): > > Say that Trump, all-around-law-abiding guy who hates corruption in all its forms, says to his staff ‘what about this $250 million going to Ukraine? We just handing this over? Putin tells me Ukraine is mega-corrupt! We shouldn’t just hand that money over!’ I wouldn’t characterize Trump this way at all. Thus, I certainly don’t think that if Trump became concerned it was because he hates all possible corruption, but just “lucked into” becoming aware of Ukraine aid and decided to take action. > [@](#): > > And his staff, doing a quick check, says ‘Mr. President, the Pentagon did an extensive study to be sure the corruption problem is taken care of sufficiently to merit handing over the money; they briefed Congress on the progress Ukraine has made in getting rid of corruption and are satisfied they’re doing well.’ > > And then Trump might say ‘who cares, I don’t believe the Pentagon have any idea what they’re doing, Putin says Ukraine is corrupt and that’s enough for me.’ > > …All that seems plausible----but it’s not quite the same thing as ‘Trump was only concerned with fighting corruption.’ That’s not believable because Trump would have been told that his own Defense Department had looked into it and decided that corruption wasn’t really an issue. Or maybe the Pentagon said nothing to Trump, so of course he wouldn’t have said that. I have no idea. I’m just putting forth a possibility and I don’t think anything you say here knocks it down. But anyway, not to lose site of the main issue for me, and that is that the Dems were hasty, weren’t really interested in getting to the bottom of things, and have so far shirked their duty. I suppose they could still redeem themselves somewhat in the trial, but I’m not hopeful. ---
**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 28, 2019, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5758 "2019-11-28T02:18:53Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Continuing my from previous post on Trump directing Giuliani… > > Since as far back as the NATO kerfuffle in 2018, where if you remember Trump briefly considered, or at least brought up, the idea of leaving NATO because countries weren’t paying their fair share, we’ve known Trump has an aversion to other countries “cheating” the U.S. out of money. Trump is happy as president pretty much ignoring the rest of the world except when he has to go to a global summit, or lay a wreath at Flanders Field. But then he gets wind of the fact that Ukraine might be getting millions of dollars in military aid, and his ears perk up. > > Mark Sandy, the only person from the OMB to [testify](https://www.vox.com/2019/11/27/20985454/impeachment-trump-ukraine-aid-timeline-news) behind closed doors to impeachment investigators: > > Suppose, just suppose, that after hearing about this, Trump sees a way to actually do something as president, and it’s based on the one thing he measures his worth by: money. He demands a hold be put on the aid until he can look into it, and being the master of the art of the deal, can then decide whether it’s a good idea and makes sense for the U.S. Only after this does Giuliani come to Trump with his master plan to take down Biden. Trump thinks, why the hell not, and then has his call with Zelensky. He is both truly concerned about a corrupt (in his head) Ukraine maybe getting aid it doesn’t deserve, _and_ now interested in political advantage that can be gained with the whole Biden thing. > > A key thing here is when did Giuliani go to Trump with the Biden angle? If it was before Trump heard about the aid, then that delivers a huge blow to the above. Ah, but what if it was after?! > > Is this completely far-fetched? Yes. It’s not plausible that he read anything in the Washington Examiner. Or anything at all. And it’s not like he didn’t sign the original legislation that allocated the funds. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2019, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5759 "2019-11-28T02:27:09Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > Yeah, I think your fourth paragraph adequately sums up the problem with this idea. The Chicago Tribune came out with an editorial in favor of censure yesterday, which motivated me to finally get around to cancelling my subscription. Really should have done that long ago. Make sure you tell them why. Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2019, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5760 "2019-11-28T02:42:06Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Yes. > > It’s not plausible that he read anything in the Washington Examiner. Or anything at all. > > And it’s not like he didn’t sign the original legislation that allocated the funds. I like your second point. The first one is a bit silly, _IMO_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=287) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=289)