# 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:** 292
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2019, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5821 "2019-11-30T15:54:38Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > I started out by saying “Suppose, just suppose…” To my recollection without going back and looking, only **Sherrerd** responded directly to what I said about the idea I thought of regarding Trump’s involvement. Everyone else seems to think I have some agenda here, some ulterior motive, other than just wanting discussing that. I assure you I do not. Here’s the thing about your, “Suppose, just suppose,” post… The facts that we have show that Trump tried to bribe Zelensky to smear Biden with taxpayer money. If we go down the road of supposing everything that you’d like us to suppose we still have that Trump tried to bribe Zelensky to smear Biden with taxpayer money after he thought about doing some other stuff. The problem here is that Trump tried to bribe Zelensky to smear Biden with taxpayer money. It doesn’t matter if he came up with the idea on his own or if Giuliani put that idea in his head. It certainly doesn’t matter when Giuliani gave him the idea, if that’s what happened. The thing that matters is that Trump tried to bribe Zelensky to smear Biden with taxpayer money. Your, “Suppose, just suppose,” scenario in no way exculpates Trump. I’m not even sure why you think it does. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2019, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5822 "2019-11-30T16:26:05Z")
“Lead me not into temptation, I can find it easily enough on my own.” ---
**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 30, 2019, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5823 "2019-11-30T18:22:49Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Is it a dog or a cat? You decide this by looking at all the evidence, which in this case is the animal in question. All the evidence is readily available and in the open. In the Ukraine debacle, this doesn’t apply. There are people involved that have not been questioned. That’s all I’m saying. I want to hear from them before I make any final conclusions about the whole thing. If I ask 30 people, “What animal passed in front of you at the beach?” And all 30 of them say, “It was a duck.” I don’t feel like I really need to go talk to the 10 people who were in the front row. ---
**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 30, 2019, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5824 "2019-11-30T19:46:31Z")
> [@simster](#): > > (bolding mine) > Therefore - I have no problem going ahead with what we _do_ know at this point. Nor do I. Trump should be impeached and thrown out of office. This has been the case for me for quite a while now. > [@Chisquirrel](#): > > You continue to repeat this like it’s just an oversight, that the House just hasn’t gotten around to talking to them. That ignores, yet again, that two of just who you named, plus how many others, are actively ignoring subpoenas. If there was exculpatory evidence, it would have been provided - like Trump’s call to Sondland saying “NO QUID PRO QUO”. > > You’re insisting that there might just be a nugget of help out there for Trump’s case, yet no one has given us that information - especially given that it would immeasurably help the President out of his current predicament. So I ask, if there are facts out there helpful to Trump, why has the American people not heard about them? I am not repeating it because I think it’s an oversight, which implies the House just forgot about the need to interview others. They didn’t do that. They chose not to fight the refusal to honor subpoenas. And most definitely, I did not bring this up because I want to help Trump’s case. I just want to talk about shit. > [@drad\_dog](#): > > I think that it’s been established that the failures to appear are evidence of guilt. You are making contortions to avoid the actualities, which would indicate dt is a danger in the wh. His obstructions indicate as much, as do the obstructions of those others. I wouldn’t say failure to appear is \*necessarily \*evidence of guilt. It is _highly_ suggestive that they have something to hide. Hearing from them would better allow us to judge their guilt/innocence/involvement. Can anyone disagree with this?? As for contortions, again, I am making no claims. I am asking questions and putting forth ideas. > [@RitterSport](#): > > Wow! That’s a good one. I see that argumentation style all the time here. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Yeah, that strip totally nails it. The comic makes an important point. But it doesn’t apply here as I stated earlier, and no one has bothered to refute what I said about why it doesn’t. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > OK, like the guy in the strip says, “When will you be satisfied that you have ‘all the facts’?” > > Specifically, who still needs to be questioned, and why? And in instances where Trump is actively enabling them to keep from testifying, why does that fact not suffice? I am satisfied with the facts we know at present that Trump should be gone. I am not satisfied with them to show that Trump, _from the beginning_, way before the phone call, was sending out his goons to drum up dirt. That was my original idea, and as I’ve said, only **Sherrerd** addressed it directly. As for who should still be questioned, I’ve already named Pence, Pompeo, and Perry. I would add Bolton and Mulvaney. My apologies that I don’t have time to name specific reasons right now. But in general, because they all are very close to the president. Would you agree at least they might have some pertinent details? The idea is to impeach and oust the president. More details, assuming they are damning, are better than fewer details. > [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > The facts that we have show that Trump tried to bribe Zelensky to smear Biden with taxpayer money… > > It doesn’t matter if he came up with the idea on his own or if Giuliani put that idea in his head… > > The thing that matters is that Trump tried to bribe Zelensky to smear Biden with taxpayer money. > > Your, “Suppose, just suppose,” scenario in no way exculpates Trump. I’m not even sure why you think it does. I agree 100% with the first three. I have never said I think it exculpates him. I do NOT think that. This is the kind of thing that often gets lost if I say something either supporting Republican ideas, or not just sticking to arguing the Democrats’ ideas. **People assume I’m trying to absolve Trump of something, when in fact I’m just stating ideas that have occurred to me that I’d like to discuss.** ---
**Author:** ![splatterpunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3be4f8/32.png) [@splatterpunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/splatterpunk)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2019, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5825 "2019-11-30T19:58:11Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > **People assume I’m trying to absolve Trump of something, when in fact I’m just stating ideas that have occurred to me that I’d like to discuss.** But why? Why would anyone want to discuss these ridiculously implausible scenarios? To what end? It’s just as worthy of discussion as supposing that aliens hypnotized Trump and manipulated him into doing all this shit. It’s not instructive or even interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2019, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5826 "2019-11-30T20:02:54Z")
> [@splatterpunk](#): > > But why? Why would anyone want to discuss these ridiculously implausible scenarios? He’s ‘just asking questions’. > [@splatterpunk](#): > > To what end? To whatever end transpires… which is total exoneration of The Messiah. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2019, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5827 "2019-11-30T20:23:51Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > I am not repeating it because I think it’s an oversight, which implies the House just forgot about the need to interview others. They didn’t do that. They chose not to fight the refusal to honor subpoenas. And most definitely, I did not bring this up because I want to help Trump’s case. I just want to talk about shit. Which conveniently ignores that they ARE fighting the refusals, where they should - in court. The only other option would be for the House to send the sergeant-at-arms to physically arrest and detain members of the Executive Branch, some of which might have Secret Service protection. If you don’t see the problems and PR nightmare that would arise from that, there’s little I can do to educate you. ---
**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 30, 2019, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5828 "2019-11-30T20:56:51Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > **People assume I’m trying to absolve Trump of something, when in fact I’m just stating ideas that have occurred to me that I’d like to discuss.** The standard in a court of law is “reasonable doubt”. If you have a video of a man robbing a bank, to be sure it is theoretically possible that he was extorted into doing it by very clever thieves, who kidnapped a woman the he fancied. But it’s silly to keep hunting for evidence that might prove this case when the suspect hasn’t made it as a defense, no one has put it forward as a defense, you’ve been hunting for three months for anything like evidence of the theory, and you never had any reason to back the theory other than that it was “cool”. If there were exonerating evidence for Trump it would be have been presented by someone. The people that you think should be asked questions would be cooperating in the investigation and answering questions, again, if they had some form of defense or if there were some argument to be made in Trump’s favor. No one has ever done anything other than ask those people to please come down and answer questions. Saying, “Well, we should ask Little Timmy if he broke the vase.” Like that’s a real thing that should be done, when you’ve just spent the last 30 minutes trying to convince Timmy to come out of his room because he’s locked himself in and is screaming that he didn’t do it, he’ll be better in the future, and please don’t take away his TV rights, and there’s a trail of blood footprints going straight from the vase shards to under Timmy’s door… Like, no, there a reason that Timmy has holed up in his little fort and is saying those things. Let’s not insult our intelligence. ---
**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:** [December 1, 2019, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5829 "2019-12-01T01:17:53Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > He’s ‘just asking questions’. > > To whatever end transpires… which is total exoneration of The Messiah. I think it’s the Overton Window. I can practically feel it moving sometimes. ---
**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:** [December 1, 2019, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5830 "2019-12-01T23:48:06Z")
> [@splatterpunk](#): > > But why? Why would anyone want to discuss these ridiculously implausible scenarios? To what end? It’s just as worthy of discussion as supposing that aliens hypnotized Trump and manipulated him into doing all this shit. It’s not instructive or even interesting. Oh, maybe because it would mean admitting that perhaps Trump did not cook up the idea himself to go after the Bidens, and that Giuliani or others instigated it. That would require Trump to be just a little bit less of a reprehensible president in their minds. Of course I have no idea if this is the reason, just something that occurred to me. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2019, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5831 "2019-12-01T23:55:31Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Oh, maybe because it would mean admitting that perhaps Trump did not cook up the idea himself to go after the Bidens, and that Giuliani or others instigated it. That would require Trump to be just a little bit less of a reprehensible president in their minds. Of course I have no idea if this is the reason, just something that occurred to me. That doesn’t really answer the question posed. ---
**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:** [December 1, 2019, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5832 "2019-12-01T23:57:35Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > He’s ‘just asking questions’. No, not just that. I also said “putting forth ideas”. > [@](#): > > To whatever end transpires… which is total exoneration of The Messiah. Now you’re doing it. Implying I meant something, when I said nothing of the kind. :rolleyes: > [@drad\_dog](#): > > I think it’s the Overton Window. I can practically feel it moving sometimes. Please explain. You know, if you have any _actual_ examples. > [@Chisquirrel](#): > > Which conveniently ignores that they ARE fighting the refusals, where they should - in court. > [@](#): > > Hopefully the people I mentioned will eventually end up in court. But of course they had the impeachment hearings without them. I think that was the wrong way to go. > > The only other option would be for the House to send the sergeant-at-arms to physically arrest and detain members of the Executive Branch, some of which might have Secret Service protection. If you don’t see the problems and PR nightmare that would arise from that, there’s little I can do to educate you. Not that I need to be “educated” by you, since right now I have no idea who you are. But okay, it’s a PR nightmare. What does that have to do with what I said? ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2019, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5833 "2019-12-02T00:02:24Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Not that I need to be “educated” by you, since right now I have no idea who you are. But okay, it’s a PR nightmare. What does that have to do with what I said? You stated “They chose not to fight the refusal to honor subpoenas.” I showed that they are, in fact, fighting the refusal to honor subpoenas. I figured you might learn that your statement “They chose not to fight the refusal to honor subpoenas.” was demonstrably false, and reconsider your view. Or don’t. I did what I could to correct your ignorance. How you progress from here is on you. ---
**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:** [December 2, 2019, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5834 "2019-12-02T00:05:14Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > That doesn’t really answer the question posed. Please explain, keeping in mind that I am not a mind reader. I don’t \*know \*why no one wants to discuss it. I offered an idea. To **splatterpunk** I also should have said that if the idea that Trump did not start the whole thing is “ridiculously implausible”, then that would be a good reason. I happen think it is very far from implausible. Which leads me to ask, what do you, fellow Dopers, think about the plausibility of this? ---
**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:** [December 2, 2019, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5835 "2019-12-02T00:08:45Z")
> [@Chisquirrel](#): > > You stated “They chose not to fight the refusal to honor subpoenas.” I showed that they are, in fact, fighting the refusal to honor subpoenas. > I figured you might learn that your statement “They chose not to fight the refusal to honor subpoenas.” was demonstrably false, and reconsider your view. Or don’t. I did what I could to correct your ignorance. How you progress from here is on you. In that I said that during a discussion of the impeachment hearings, I would think it obvious that I meant during the time period of the hearings. I guess it was not obvious, so thanks for allowing me to make that clear. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2019, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5836 "2019-12-02T00:19:41Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Please explain, keeping in mind that I am not a mind reader. I don’t \*know \*why no one wants to discuss it. I offered an idea. Well the question was, why should we WANT to discuss it, not why are we avoiding it. Why we’re avoiding it has already been addressed – there’s no evidence to support your hypothesis. That’s the baseline. ---
**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:** [December 2, 2019, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5837 "2019-12-02T00:27:14Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Oh, maybe because it would mean admitting that perhaps Trump did not cook up the idea himself to go after the Bidens, and that Giuliani or others instigated it. That would require Trump to be just a little bit less of a reprehensible president in their minds. Of course I have no idea if this is the reason, just something that occurred to me. What do you mean here? You think it matters whether turnp decided to do this without prompting, or was given the idea by rudy? They are pretty much equally reprehensible in any sense that matters for our politics. Also to a judge or jury they aren’t very different. Also, why are you defending your general posting here with things that “just occurred to you”? What is the deeper conviction? You know, from before that. Anyway are you taking this time to be lecturing us that dt is not as reprehensible as we think? Is that the eventual point? Who is your audience? ---
**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:** [December 2, 2019, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5838 "2019-12-02T00:54:08Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Well the question was, why should we WANT to discuss it, not why are we avoiding it. Why we’re avoiding it has already been addressed – there’s no evidence to support your hypothesis. That’s the baseline. I don’t usually sit down and think for hours whether or not someone will be interested in discussing something before I post it. > [@drad\_dog](#): > > What do you mean here? I merely posed a question/supposition. I don’t know what all the uproar is about. Just forget it. ---
**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:** [December 2, 2019, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5839 "2019-12-02T01:32:04Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > I don’t usually sit down and think for hours whether or not someone will be interested in discussing something before I post it. > > I merely posed a question/supposition. I don’t know what all the uproar is about. Just forget it. I was doing that too. Your questions are just curiosity and mine are an uproar? If we are entertaining your questions why don’t you feel you need to answer ours? ---
**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:** [December 2, 2019, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/5840 "2019-12-02T02:02:32Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Please explain, keeping in mind that I am not a mind reader. I don’t \*know \*why no one wants to discuss it. I offered an idea. > > To **splatterpunk** I also should have said that if the idea that Trump did not start the whole thing is “ridiculously implausible”, then that would be a good reason. I happen think it is very far from implausible. > > Which leads me to ask, what do you, fellow Dopers, think about the plausibility of this? Irrelevant - he went along with it, and used the power of the presidency to pursue it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=291) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=293)