# 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:** 290
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2019, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5781 "2019-11-28T17:44:20Z")
Sure, but then I’d have to admit I was wrong. Rather fight it out. ---
**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 28, 2019, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5782 "2019-11-28T17:47:33Z")
> [@Horatius](#): > > I’ve given up on convincing current Republican voters of anything. I’m putting my hopes in a sufficient number of non-voters getting pissed off enough to vote against him. The Democrats had 3 million more votes the last time, and it wasn’t enough. They need more, and letting Republican politicians out themselves as the utter bastards they are is they only way I can see to get those votes. > > Sure, it may not work, but then again, nothing else we’ve tried has worked, either. If it doesn’t work, then the Great American Experiment is officially a failure. Take heart, take heart. Here is a [story in Vox](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/19/18103110/2018-midterm-elections-turnout), about a year old, but it explains the increased voter turnout in the 2018 mid-term election. Republicans had record turnout in 2018 – but Democratic turnout was much higher. Even in the off-off-year election just a couple weeks ago that turned Virginia blue, voter turnout, especially for the Dems, remains at record highs. I don’t think that is going to change in 2020. The key is to not fall for all the disinformation that will be put out by the Russians, the Saudis and others, aided by Republicans. They’re all on the same team now. As a country, we are so easy to manipulate. They all know that. ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2019, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5783 "2019-11-28T17:53:18Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > Take heart, take heart. Here is a [story in Vox](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/19/18103110/2018-midterm-elections-turnout), about a year old, but it explains the increased voter turnout in the 2018 mid-term election. Republicans had record turnout in 2018 – but Democratic turnout was much higher. Even in the off-off-year election just a couple weeks ago that turned Virginia blue, voter turnout, especially for the Dems, remains at record highs. > > I don’t think that is going to change in 2020. The key is to not fall for all the disinformation that will be put out by the Russians, the Saudis and others, aided by Republicans. They’re all on the same team now. As a country, we are so easy to manipulate. They all know that. Yes, and those results are why I still have hope. And why I think letting the Republicans play the fool on a national stage can only be of benefit. The hard core of Trump supporters will probably never change, but there’s still a chance for other citizens to stand up and help fix things. But we need to keep pushing - complacency will only help the Trumpeteers. But, as always, there is a chance it could all blow up in our faces. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2019, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5784 "2019-11-28T18:02:13Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Biden (in my ever so humble opinion) will not end up being the Democratic nominee, so it won’t hurt the Dems. Sure, but Will spill on them and they’ll have to disown him aggresively or be weem and helping a crook. > [@friedo](#): > > That’s not how impeachment trials work. The “prosecution” is composed of managers appointed by the House, and the president will have a team of defense lawyers. The Senate serves as the jury and has little to no role in setting the trial agenda. Trump Will call witnesses on that issue and show his take on it. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > …(snipped) > > In Congress, they swore an oath to uphold the rules as written in the Constitution. The Constitution says that you must impeach and remove the President for Treason, Bribery, Emoluments, and High Crimes and Misdemeanors. > > If impeachment is bad for your party, because the American public is punishing the politicians for doing their sworn duty, then the people need to be penalized and corrected for misbehavior. A party should do what is best for the country regardless of the electoral outcome, sure. Impeachment, as it stands now, Will fall, hard. The evidence is weak and it will shift the narrative will shift to the “unfair” democrats. Again, regardless of Trump’s guilt, that’s what’ll happen. > [@Horatius](#): > > So let them make it a circus about Biden. That makes them look even worse. It will be obvious they’re not addressing the actual issues put forward in the articles of impeachment, and it will be obvious that all the “evidence” they’re putting forward against Biden is bullshit. > > At this point, this isn’t about winning the impeachment vote in the Senate, it’s about making those GOP senators own their own corruption and lack of moral fiber. The more BS they pile on trying to save Trump, the more people who might not have voted in the next election get fired up enough to actually vote. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2019, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5785 "2019-11-28T18:26:42Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Sure, but Will spill on them and they’ll have to disown him aggresively or be weem and helping a crook. “Weem”? And no, he won’t “spill on them”, nor will he be seen as a crook by those who aren’t already committed to the GOP false narrative. > [@](#): > > Trump Will call witnesses on that issue and show his take on it. Given the number of people who are now convicted felons due to lying under oath to protect Trump, I don’t think he’s going to find “witnesses” willing to “show his take on it” easily. Maybe Nunes will jump in. > [@](#): > > Impeachment, as it stands now, Will fall, hard. The evidence is weak and it will shift the narrative will shift to the “unfair” democrats. Again, regardless of Trump’s guilt, that’s what’ll happen. There is already a substantial amount of evidence for it, and the White House/DOJ are currently actively defying subpoenas in order to block further witnesses from testifying and documents from being released (including emails - hmm, there’s something about not releasing emails under subpoena that rings a bell…). If the evidence were weak, why would Trump and Barr literally commit crimes to stop testimony demonstrating it? ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2019, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5786 "2019-11-28T18:30:55Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > “Weem”? And no, he won’t “spill on them”, nor will he be seen as a crook by those who aren’t already committed to the GOP false narrative. > … Man, what did I write???:smack: I meant: \*Sure, but it will spill on them and they’ll have to disown him aggresively or be seen as a helping a crook. - (I’m sure you still disagree, but at least it’s better) ---
**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 28, 2019, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5787 "2019-11-28T18:31:47Z")
**friedo** , I understand Roberts will rule on evidentiary matters, but is his role limited in this? As an example and AIUI, Roberts could rule on the relevance of Trump’s lawyers calling, say, Christopher Steele, finding Steele’s testimony to be irrelevant to the issue of Trump’s alleged wrongdoing – but then the Senate can vote and overrule Roberts’ ruling. Do I have this all wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2019, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5788 "2019-11-28T18:37:51Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Man, what did I write???:smack: > > I meant: \*Sure, but it will spill on them and they’ll have to disown him aggresively or be seen as a helping a crook. > > - > > (I’m sure you still disagree, but at least it’s better) Okay, that makes more sense. Don’t worry - we’ve all had our gibberish moments. 😛 ---
**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, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5789 "2019-11-28T18:55:09Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Okay, but if that were the case, why wouldn’t Trump have wanted to get some intelligence professionals (CIA, military intelligence) etc. to open an official inquiry? > > Is it reasonable to believe that Trump credibly thought that hotelier Gordon Sondland and whatever-he-is-now Rudy Giuliani would have a better chance of coming up with a comprehensive report on ‘corruption’ in another nation? Remember when Trump said he knew more than his generals? This is the essence, or part of it at least, of Trump. You think he consulted with anyone before coming up with the idea that NATO was obsolete and we should pull out? I don’t. Same idea here. Trump knows all or can figure it out himself. Do keep in mind though that these comments of mine are just things that have occurred to me. I’m not saying I believe them unequivocally. Just food for thought. > [@](#): > > I don’t know if “shirked” really fits, but I’ll agree that they haven’t succeeded in fully presenting for the American voting public the story of Trump’s Ukraine scheme. > > A large part of that isn’t the fault of the Democrats, though. It’s the fault of a system that has, so far, permitted a conscious-of-his-own-guilt President, abetted by a corrupt Attorney General, to stonewall Congress on both witnesses and documents. Yeah, okay, shirked is too much. But if the Dems weren’t so eager to get this over with, that could have gone to court to try and get people to testify. That’s what I’m getting at. ---
**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, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5790 "2019-11-28T18:59:36Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Occam’s Razor wept. Sure, there are more simple explanations. I acknowledge that fully. But sometimes, more complex explanations turn out to be correct. I’m just throwing out ideas here, that’s all. And keep in mind, far from all the details are known at this point. Again, the Dens should have tried to get more testimony. Hopefully Bolton and the rest will be in front of the committees, either at the trial or part of additional oversight. ---
**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, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5791 "2019-11-28T19:11:24Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > No, it wasn’t. > > I share this missive for those who seem to be twisting themselves into Gumby-like contortions to find a narrative in the Ukraine chronicle that makes Trump look like an ok guy This could be directed at me as well, I suppose. Hopefully I’ve just made it clear that I am not trying to twist myself into anything, rather to simply suggest othet possibilities that may well be borne out, _if all the facts are known at some point._ In addition to the fact that I know full well that Trump is pretty fuckin’ far from an okay guy. ---
**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 28, 2019, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5792 "2019-11-28T19:33:37Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Sure, there are more simple explanations. I acknowledge that fully. But sometimes, more complex explanations turn out to be correct. I’m just throwing out ideas here, that’s all. And keep in mind, far from all the details are known at this point. Again, the Dens should have tried to get more testimony. Hopefully Bolton and the rest will be in front of the committees, either at the trial or part of additional oversight. I don’t expect Bolton to know more about the fundamentals of this than his crew did. He might be aware of other topics other than Ukraine that they should investigate, but probably wouldn’t volunteer that on his own, without some targeted questions. You’ll have to get into Trump’s crew of loyalists to get anything worthwhile. But, at the same time, they’ll all either lie or plead the 5th, so there’s not much value in talking to them, really. You need documents that they touched, texts, and the like. With that, you might get one to flip, since he knows he’s in trouble. Minus it and you’re just looking into the face of omerta. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2019, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5793 "2019-11-28T21:15:51Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I don’t expect Bolton to know more about the fundamentals of this than his crew did. He might be aware of other topics other than Ukraine that they should investigate, but probably wouldn’t volunteer that on his own, without some targeted questions. > > You’ll have to get into Trump’s crew of loyalists to get anything worthwhile. But, at the same time, they’ll all either lie or plead the 5th, so there’s not much value in talking to them, really. You need documents that they touched, texts, and the like. With that, you might get one to flip, since he knows he’s in trouble. Minus it and you’re just looking into the face of omerta. Bearing in mind that this is not a court of law, Wouldn’t have witnesses plead the 5th or otherwise obfuscate be informative in and of itself? I’m thinking of something along the lines of: You don’t have to testify, but we are free to draw inferences from your refusal to answer questions ---
**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, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5794 "2019-11-28T21:44:11Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > If there is a trial in the Senate, dominated by the GOP, they will make it about Biden and the dems, and will be a disaster. YOu don’t want that if you’re a dem. > > Cut your loses, censure him and be done with it. You sound concerned. Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk ---
**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, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5795 "2019-11-28T21:47:34Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > I like your second point. The first one is a bit silly, _IMO_. Your _O_ appears to depend upon propositions that do not have any basis in reality. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2019, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5796 "2019-11-28T23:10:00Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > This could be directed at me as well, I suppose. Hopefully I’ve just made it clear that I am not trying to twist myself into anything, rather to simply suggest othet possibilities that may well be borne out, _if all the facts are known at some point._ In addition to the fact that I know full well that Trump is pretty fuckin’ far from an okay guy. WHat new ‘fact’ would it take to show the president in a good light? Simply putting a hold on the funds was illegal in and of itself - there is a proper method to go about doing that if there was a legitimate need for it to be held up. Face it - you keep hoping there is some legitimacy for his actions where none exists - if there were some - he would be providing that information and this entire mess would be behind us. ---
**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 29, 2019, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5797 "2019-11-29T01:56:30Z")
> [@simster](#): > > WHat new ‘fact’ would it take to show the president in a good light? Simply putting a hold on the funds was illegal in and of itself - there is a proper method to go about doing that if there was a legitimate need for it to be held up. Who said anything about showing the president in a good light? I am merely saying since we haven’t heard from numerous others involved, like Bolton, Pompeo, Perry, and Pence, among others, that we don’t know the whole story. So naturally I can’t give you a new fact. It would be pure guessing, and what’s the use in that? Anyway, I agree with the rest. > [@](#): > > Face it - you keep hoping there is some legitimacy for his actions where none exists - if there were some - he would be providing that information and this entire mess would be behind us. Sorry, but you are completely wrong here. I am hoping for one thing only when it comes to Trump: that he be gone as soon as possible. These things have occurred to me, so I brought them up. Nothing more ---
**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 29, 2019, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5798 "2019-11-29T02:08:59Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Your _O_ appears to depend upon propositions that do not have any basis in reality. I am 100% behind the idea that reality is the best place to be. After all, as Woody Allen once quipped, it’s the only place you can get a good steak. 🙂 But in situations where I don’t know all the facts, I’m not going to fill them in and pretend I know the whole reality. ---
**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 29, 2019, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5799 "2019-11-29T03:06:58Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Trump Will call witnesses on that issue and show his take on it. About that… > [@Nancy Pelosi](#): > > Well, all this milieu is a seeking of the truth. It’s called an inquiry. And if the president has something that it–is exculpatory, Mr. President, that means you have anything that shows your innocence, then he should make that known and that’s part of the inquiry. And so far, we haven’t seen that, but we welcome it. ---
**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 29, 2019, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5800 "2019-11-29T21:03:05Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > I am 100% behind the idea that reality is the best place to be. After all, as Woody Allen once quipped, it’s the only place you can get a good steak. 🙂 But in situations where I don’t know all the facts, I’m not going to fill them in and pretend I know the whole reality. [I’ve used this elsewhere on the board, but it could probably do with a reprise…](http://wondermark.com/c1406/) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=289) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=291)