# 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:** 320
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6381 "2019-12-19T21:20:04Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > How do they have a trial without the prosecution presenting its case? That isn’t a trial. The public will not be fooled by that. The prosecution is welcome to present its case. If they don’t show up on schedule, then its on them. > [@jsc1953](#): > > Congress is built on absurd formalities. And it’s funny that McConnell didn’t mention this bulldozer approach to a trial when he commented today on Pelosi’s gambit. Are you a congressional parliamentarian by trade, or did you just pull this opinion out of your ass? Do you have an opinion other than snark? > [@ThelmaLou](#): > > My bold. “…she has no say whatsoever as to \*\*how \*\*the Senate conducts its trial.” > > Yes, but she has a say over WHEN. No she doesn’t. Cite? ---
**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:** [December 19, 2019, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6382 "2019-12-19T21:20:10Z")
If the GOP tries to run a trial without a prosecution present, that is not a trial. How dumb do you think the electorate is that they won’t see through that? What are they going to do, just bang the gavel and adjourn? I don’t think that will play well when the large majority of the country wants to see witnesses and a fair trial. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6383 "2019-12-19T21:22:03Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > She’s the Speaker of the House. The rules give her the say on who to pick to send over. > > You’re basically asking, “That judge sentenced that man to 5 years of time in jail! Under what authority does he think he can do that!?” Er… It’s the part of the job description? She has absolute authority to choose which House Managers she selects for the impeachment trial. But if the Senate says, “It’s January 7 so send 'em over” and she refuses because she wants to use the “we didn’t deliver the articles” argument, she acts at her own peril. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6384 "2019-12-19T21:24:39Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > If the GOP tries to run a trial without a prosecution present, that is not a trial. How dumb do you think the electorate is that they won’t see through that? What are they going to do, just bang the gavel and adjourn? I don’t think that will play well when the large majority of the country wants to see witnesses and a fair trial. If the prosecution is not present, it would be because of the House’s own intransigence. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6385 "2019-12-19T21:28:31Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > If the prosecution is not present, it would be because of the House’s own intransigence. This seems to be McConnell’s playbook, yes: 1. State unapologetically that he has no interest in fairness or democratic norms. 2. Blame others for #1. 3. When others try to do anything in response to #1, claim it shows their lack of interest in fairness or democratic norms. Given McConnell’s explicit strategy of having the lead juror strategize with the defendant, there’s absolutely zero reasonable ground for any Republican to criticize any Democrat for intransigence. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6386 "2019-12-19T21:28:40Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > She has absolute authority to choose which House Managers she selects for the impeachment trial. But if the Senate says, “It’s January 7 so send 'em over” and she refuses because she wants to use the “we didn’t deliver the articles” argument, she acts at her own peril. Peril? There can be no impeachment without delivery of the Articles to the Senate. The Chief Justice won’t even be in the building. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6387 "2019-12-19T21:34:27Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Peril? There can be no impeachment without delivery of the Articles to the Senate. The Chief Justice won’t even be in the building. Under present rules. Which can be changed in the next hour. ---
**Author:** ![Shoeless](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shoeless/32/7099_2.png) [@Shoeless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shoeless)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6388 "2019-12-19T21:39:35Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > I think Pelosi knows exactly what she is doing and is not ruffled in the least. It’s hard for the other side to scream, “gamesmanship!” when their Senate Majority Leader and the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee have both come out and said they do not intend to be impartial jurors or provide a fair trial on the facts, will not even allow the House to call witnesses. > > I think it’s McConnell and Graham who have miscalculated when they publicly announced their intent to rig the Senate trial. Polls show 71% of people in this country want witnesses to be called. There are a lot of Republicans who are included in that figure. > > Plus, this is going to nut Trump up even beyond his 6-page screed. He’s been waiting as patiently as he can for this to get to the Senate so he can have his “exonerated” moment. Now he has to wait some more. Maybe a lot more. Pelosi knows that the scarier he gets, the more pressure it puts on Republicans to acknowledge they are supporting a loon in the White House. > > You know who else is likely wiping his brow at Pelosi’s insistence on a fair trial? John Roberts, who has probably had a few sleepless nights thinking about what a chump he’s going to look while presiding over a sham trial where the jurors have already declared the fix is in. A thought occurred to me: what if Chief Justice Roberts tells every Senator that has already decreed that they cannot/will not be impartial, that they are not allowed to vote? Can he do that as the presiding judge? (I know it will never happen, just wondering if it could…) ---
**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:** [December 19, 2019, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6389 "2019-12-19T21:40:34Z")
If McConnell had the 51 votes needed to change the rules, he’d have already done it. Behind the scenes, I don’t think he has his caucus lined up nearly as well as he would like us to believe. AIUI, the reason the vote to acquit isn’t going to happen the instant the articles are delivered to the Senate is because McConnell doesn’t have the 51 votes to make it happen. If that’s true, there’s no reason to believe he’ll have the 51 votes to change the rules, either. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6390 "2019-12-19T21:44:06Z")
If McConnell tries to change the rules, he’ll be filibustered so hard he won’t know what hit him. ---
**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:** [December 19, 2019, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6391 "2019-12-19T21:51:49Z")
> [@Shoeless](#): > > A thought occurred to me: what if Chief Justice Roberts tells every Senator that has already decreed that they cannot/will not be impartial, that they are not allowed to vote? Can he do that as the presiding judge? (I know it will never happen, just wondering if it could…) I was just watching a debate on this topic on MSNBC. Andrew Weissmann (top Mueller attorney) was just saying how, once the trial goes to the Senate, Roberts can play a very big role. How big is really up to him, Roberts. It’s good to remember that Roberts does appear mindful of his SCOTUS legacy and for that reason may not act so much as a McConnell tool – especially since McConnell literally fronted him off by saying he would not be an impartial juror. Weissmann also pointed out that yes, trial rules can be changed with a bare majority, but if Republicans opt to do that, it will come at a cost. This is the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS we’re talking about. Do Republican Senators really want to drag him through an obviously partisan exercise? Do they believe this will assist them in obtaining the SCOTUS rulings they want so much as their cases arrive at the Supreme Court? As to your specific question, it’s a really sticky situation for Roberts to preside over a trial that has been declared from the outset by the jurors to be rigged in favor of the defendant. I don’t know what Roberts can do sua sponte – or even if he could, whether he would. At the least, I think he is on Pelosi’s side to obtain some sort of agreement that the trial will be “fair” – even if only by way of lip service. ---
**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:** [December 19, 2019, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6392 "2019-12-19T21:52:15Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Just like trump sez, it’s obviously all Hillary’s fault: > > [Hillary lost in 2016 on purpose so Trump could be impeached, claims White House source](https://washingtonpress.com/2019/12/18/hillary-lost-in-2016-on-purpose-so-trump-could-be-impeached-claims-white-house-source/?fbclid=IwAR39Mc8YXmsRwOu8OIw6bru0Y9l0fQ3SAZCHJB90X5NxkE8__YM9jAAEo2Y) > _Hillary lost in 2016 on purpose so Trump could be impeached, claims White House source_ > :eek::eek::eek::eek: > > Please note, this is NOT from the Onion. Not from _The Onion_, but from the satirical _Borowitz Report_ from 2017. > **[Trump Accuses Clinton of Deliberately Losing Election So He Could Be Impeached](https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-accuses-clinton-of-deliberately-losing-election?verso=true)** > > “How could one of the most experienced politicians in history lose to the most unfit candidate ever?” Trump asked reporters. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6393 "2019-12-19T22:51:35Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > If McConnell tries to change the rules, he’ll be filibustered so hard he won’t know what hit him. I sincerely hope McConnell wouldn’t go so far as to change the rules. But I’ve given up that the present administration will “play fair.” McConnell has demonstrated his willingness to get his will at any cost numerous times. In the end, we are relying on the R senators to self-police, and I don’t trust that will happen. I always thought Congress would keep a rogue president in line. They have shown a willingness to go along with whatever he wants to an extreme level. Now we are thinking they will not just bend over to do whatever they want in their own venue? Doubtful. A filibuster is easily defeated, should the Senate desire to do so. As I’ve been saying over and over, there are no real rules here. None. The rules, effectively, are whatever McConnell can convince his caucus to do. And it would seem they have most, if not all, under tight control. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6394 "2019-12-19T23:19:40Z")
Polls are suggesting that about seventy percent of the public want an actual trial, with sworn witnesses and all that crunchy goodness. And roughly fifty percent want Il Douche tried and removed. Which leads to the perplexing thought that maybe twenty percent of the public believes that a fair and open trial would _actually_ exonerate him. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6395 "2019-12-20T00:29:57Z")
Add the evangelical magazine Christianity Today to the growing list of publications calling for Trump’s impeachment and ouster. > **[Christianity Today editor calls for Trump to be removed from office](https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/475386-christian-today-editorial-board-calls-for-trump-to-be-removed/)** > > Christianity Today, the flagship Evangelical magazine, called for President Trump to be removed from office in a new editorial.The piece, attributed to Christianity Today Editor in Chief Mark … ---
**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:** [December 20, 2019, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6396 "2019-12-20T00:54:14Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > She has absolute authority to choose which House Managers she selects for the impeachment trial. But if the Senate says, “It’s January 7 so send 'em over” and she refuses because she wants to use the “we didn’t deliver the articles” argument, she acts at her own peril. You speak so authoritatively. So you can provide a citation, yes? Because this Harvard Law Professor disagrees with you. You do have Dershowitz on your side though. lol Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk ---
**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:** [December 20, 2019, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6397 "2019-12-20T00:59:44Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > You speak so authoritatively. So you can provide a citation, yes? > > Because this Harvard Law Professor disagrees with you. > > You do have Dershowitz on your side though. lol > > Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk > **[What if the House doesn’t send the impeachment articles to the Senate? Idea...](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2019/12/18/nation/what-if-house-doesnt-send-impeachment-articles-ato-senate-idea-championed-by-harvard-laws-laurence-tribe-garners-attention/)** > > Some Democrats want to hold the impeachment articles after they’re passed -- and not transmit them to the Senate. Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6398 "2019-12-20T01:14:09Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > [https://www.bostonglobe.com/2019/12/18/nation/what-if-house-doesnt-send-impeachment-articles-ato-senate-idea-championed-by-harvard-laws-laurence-tribe-garners-attention/](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2019/12/18/nation/what-if-house-doesnt-send-impeachment-articles-ato-senate-idea-championed-by-harvard-laws-laurence-tribe-garners-attention/) > > Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk Paywalled. Can you summarize or quote a relevant bit? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6399 "2019-12-20T01:28:25Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > Add the evangelical magazine Christianity Today to the growing list of publications calling for Trump’s impeachment and ouster. > > [https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/475386-christian-today-editorial-board-calls-for-trump-to-be-removed](https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/475386-christian-today-editorial-board-calls-for-trump-to-be-removed) I’m really interested in the reaction to this. Trump maintains his cult not only by attacking any apostates, but also by encouraging the remaining cultists to attack apostates. I think (hope!) there’s a significant number of Trumpists who kindasorta want to get out, but are worried about the social/career consequences of leaving. If the attacks on Christianity Today are able to hamstring the magazine, then Trump wins. But if that doesn’t work, then my thinking/hoping gets put to the test. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6400 "2019-12-20T01:37:06Z")
> [@Shoeless](#): > > A thought occurred to me: what if Chief Justice Roberts tells every Senator that has already decreed that they cannot/will not be impartial, that they are not allowed to vote? Can he do that as the presiding judge? (I know it will never happen, just wondering if it could…) During an impeachment trial, the ruling of the chair can be overridden with 51 votes. As far as the other stuff, I’m not speaking with any authority, nor can anyone else. It is dealing with a procedural matter that the founding fathers never spoke about nor would they have contemplated a House impeaching a president, but not wanting an immediate trial, and the converse of an accused president demanding that a trial which could remove him from office. But the Senate does have the sole power to try impeachments. Nobody can demand certain procedures or that it be “fair” in their mind. Plus, the Dems have stated that the evidence of Trump’s guilt is so clear and obvious. If so, why do they need more witnesses and evidence? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=319) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=321)