# 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:** 321
**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 20, 2019, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6401 "2019-12-20T01:42:50Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 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?** LOL, you’re an attorney, but you ask this ridiculous question? Should we just convict on the basis of indictments/preliminary hearings alone? Because that’s what you’re saying. ---
**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, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6402 "2019-12-20T01:47:01Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > LOL, you’re an attorney, but you ask this ridiculous question? Should we just convict on the basis of indictments/preliminary hearings alone? Because that’s what you’re saying. This is not a criminal trial. ---
**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, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6403 "2019-12-20T02:00:07Z")
> **[Harvard law prof pitched the idea of withholding impeachment articles; is it...](https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/harvard-law-prof-pitched-the-idea-of-withholding-impeachment-articles-is-it-constitutional)** > > After the U.S. House of Representatives voted Wednesday to impeach President Donald Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the articles of impeachment may temporarily be withheld from the U.S. Senate. Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk ---
**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 20, 2019, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6404 "2019-12-20T02:03:10Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > This is not a criminal trial. Nope. So you shouldn’t be making parallel comparisons with that. For impeachment, there is a non-criminal trial in the Senate. Period. ---
**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, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6405 "2019-12-20T02:16:52Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > Nope. So you shouldn’t be making parallel comparisons with that. For impeachment, there is a non-criminal trial in the Senate. Period. Where did I make a “parallel comparison” to a criminal trial? It is not a criminal trial or a civil trial. The Senators are not jurors The Federal Rules of Civil (or Criminal) Procedure does not apply, nor do the rules of evidence apply. It is entirely a creature of the constitution. That’s why most of the arguments in these threads miss the point. ---
**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 20, 2019, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6406 "2019-12-20T02:21:16Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Where did I make a “parallel comparison” to a criminal trial? It is not a criminal trial or a civil trial. The Senators are not jurors The Federal Rules of Civil (or Criminal) Procedure does not apply, nor do the rules of evidence apply. It is entirely a creature of the constitution. That’s why most of the arguments in these threads miss the point. Yes, a creature of the Constitution that requires the Senate to conduct an impartial trial. That was the point I was making, which doesn’t miss the point of your stupid comment about “enough witnesses and evidence” in any way. Trump should have an opportunity to prove his path to acquittal, no? ---
**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:** [December 20, 2019, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6407 "2019-12-20T02:41:24Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > 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. Or that twenty percent could be made of Republicans comparable to Jeff Flake, who famously held up the Kavanaugh confirmation until it was agreed that the FBI would do an investigation of the accusations against Kavanaugh—but as it turned out, the FBI investigation was cursory and truncated. The fix was essentially in. But Flake was okay with that—because the forms had been observed. The twenty percent may want the forms to be observed, even if the fix is actually in. But the ‘seventy percent want an actual trial’ results are good news. For any national political-issue poll, a result of seventy percent is high. On so many topics the US public breaks down close to 50/50; 70% is evidence of some strong feelings along the ‘fairness is important’ axis. If a lot of Americans want a fair trial, then a lot of Americans may be aware–or may be capable of being made aware–that Trump has stopped all the ‘witnesses in the room’ from testifying. He’s silenced those who could say one way or the other what he was up to with Ukraine. And that’s bound to strike a lot of Americans who find ‘a fair trial’ to be important, as odd. If Trump’s interactions with Ukraine were so innocent and correct and perfect, then why not have the people in the room with Trump when these interactions were discussed and carried out, come to the Senate and say so? The longer the conversation remains ‘_the Articles are being held up until the Senate commits to having these important witnesses testify,_’ then the more voters will become aware that Trump has something to hide. ---
**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, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6408 "2019-12-20T03:22:37Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > Yes, a creature of the Constitution that requires the Senate to conduct an impartial trial. That was the point I was making, which doesn’t miss the point of your stupid comment about “enough witnesses and evidence” in any way. > > Trump should have an opportunity to prove his path to acquittal, no? What do you consider an “impartial” trial? I’m sure that 90+ Senators have already decided. Do they recuse themselves? In no other type of case (which I realize does not apply here) does a Plaintiff get to call any and every witness they want or introduce every piece of evidence they want. Does the Senate in this instance if it refuses some evidence make it not “impartial”? Keep in mind that in the Clinton trial, the Senate refused to allow the House Managers to call any live witnesses at all. Was that trial, controlled by Republicans for the Republican House not “impartial” to the detriment of the House Managers? I mean, Monica Lewinsky would seem to be a very necessary witness to prove the perjury charge by admitting the sexual contact that occurred. Refusing to allow the House to call witnesses who may or may not have any relevant evidence is by no means a refusal to be “impartial.” If Bolton testifies that yes he heard the call and either did/did not believe it was improper, it would not normally be relevant evidence, so I don’t see why if the Senate decided to exclude him (and the others) that it would be such an outrage. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6409 "2019-12-20T03:25:51Z")
The reason why Democrats want witnesses should be obvious: the testimony of Bolton and Mulvaney will be damning, assuming they don’t perjure themselves. That may not sway 20 senators, but it’ll make Trumps re-election chances that much more remote. And that’s why Trump will do everything to keep them quiet. ---
**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 20, 2019, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6410 "2019-12-20T03:39:20Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > What do you consider an “impartial” trial? I’m sure that 90+ Senators have already decided. Do they recuse themselves? > > In no other type of case (which I realize does not apply here) does a Plaintiff get to call any and every witness they want or introduce every piece of evidence they want. Does the Senate in this instance if it refuses some evidence make it not “impartial”? > > \ I’ll answer this, but probably not until tomorrow night. Life gets in the way till then. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6411 "2019-12-20T03:47:22Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > Yes, a creature of the Constitution that requires the Senate to conduct an impartial trial. That was the point I was making, which doesn’t miss the point of your stupid comment about “enough witnesses and evidence” in any way. > > Trump should have an opportunity to prove his path to acquittal, no? \*Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.\* I dont see the word "impartial " in there. They shoudl be, but they are political animals and we all know they wont be. They were in Johnson or in Clinton. ---
**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, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6412 "2019-12-20T04:15:23Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > The reason why Democrats want witnesses should be obvious: the testimony of Bolton and Mulvaney will be damning, assuming they don’t perjure themselves. That may not sway 20 senators, but it’ll make Trumps re-election chances that much more remote. And that’s why Trump will do everything to keep them quiet. That is about every reason in the book to exclude it. First, there is the unsupported assumption that these witnesses will either be damning or else they perjured themselves. As nobody has heard from these witnesses that assertion cannot be made in good faith. Second, you concede that it will not affect the outcome of the trial even if your bald assertion is correct, and that the real purpose is for some outside political benefit. A fair and impartial judge would exclude that testimony for those reasons, and if it was any other type of trial would sanction the attorney who made the proposition. > [@DrDeth](#): > > \*Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide: > > The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. > Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.\* > > I dont see the word "impartial " in there. They shoudl be, but they are political animals and we all know they wont be. They were in Johnson or in Clinton. I think that impartiality and fairness are implicit in any trial conducted in the United States of America. But I otherwise agree with you that an impeachment trial is unique such that it cannot be held to the same standards as other trials. In any other trial, all 100 Senators would be disqualified as jurors, but we cannot do that under the Constitution. That’s why I think it is silly to ask McConnell or anyone else to step aside, or to ask senators to pretend that they have never read or watched the news over the last three years. (Plus, they are not really jurors). That would be an unrealistic expectation, and it also would be a meaningless formality that would make liars out of all of them. As you said, it is a uniquely political scheme and the best we can hope for is to ask every senator to determine in his or her own mind: 1) if they allegations are true to whatever standard they feel is appropriate, and 2) do they, in the individual’s belief constitute “treason, bribery, or other high crime or misdemeanor.” Anything else would be a foolishly form over substance request. ---
**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 20, 2019, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6413 "2019-12-20T04:17:08Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > \*Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide: > > The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they **shall be on Oath or Affirmation**. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. > Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.\* > > I dont see the word "impartial " in there. They shoudl be, but they are political animals and we all know they wont be. They were in Johnson or in Clinton. A sworn oath that specifically includes a promise to sit in an impartial way: “I solemnly swear [or affirm, as the case may be] that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [the person being impeached], now pending, _I will do impartial justice_ according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.” Is there something ambiguous in the word, “impartial” contained in that oath? ---
**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, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6414 "2019-12-20T06:29:13Z")
> [@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. If Jan 7 rolls around and Pelosi just rolls over and names managers, I still think this is brilliant on her part: leave the opposition on tenterhooks for 2+ weeks, while Trump, McConnell, Graham, whoever stamp their little feat and declare this unfair. It makes them look weak and powerless, always a good thing, while the House can say, “hey, we’re just waiting to be back in session and settle this agreeably”. The President and the Senate want this to go away – they can stew for a bit while it doesn’t. There’s no downside. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6415 "2019-12-20T12:36:22Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > This is not a criminal trial. True, that’ll come later, assuming your man doesn’t blow a gasket first. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6416 "2019-12-20T14:19:06Z")
Well, the argument I’m hearing is that since the Senate has already made up its collective mind before hearing new evidence from new witnesses, there’s really no reason to hear potentially damaging testimony from said new witnesses. Especially since the testimony might shed bad light on The Don. That argument doesn’t get very far with me and, hopefully, not many other Americans, either. ---
**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, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6417 "2019-12-20T14:30:06Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > \*Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide: > > The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. > Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.\* > > I dont see the word "impartial " in there. They shoudl be, but they are political animals and we all know they wont be. They were in Johnson or in Clinton. Impartiality is in [the oath](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/theres-nothing-impartial-about-declaring-yourself-impartial/603658/) that they have to swear to. > [@](#): > > “Before proceeding to the consideration of the articles of impeachment,” according to the standing rules of Senate impeachment trials, “the Presiding Officer shall administer the oath hereinafter provided to the members of the Senate then present and to the other members of the Senate as they shall appear, whose duty it shall be to take the same.” > > The oath “hereinafter provided” does not oblige senators to act “in total coordination with the White House counsel and attorneys for the accused”; nor does it commit them to doing “everything I can to make this trial die quickly” and to not “pretend to be a fair juror here.” Rather, the oath that both Graham and McConnell will swear reads as follows: “I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.’’ ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6418 "2019-12-20T14:43:15Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > That is about every reason in the book to exclude it. First, there is the unsupported assumption that these witnesses will either be damning or else they perjured themselves. As nobody has heard from these witnesses that assertion cannot be made in good faith. Second, you concede that it will not affect the outcome of the trial even if your bald assertion is correct, and that the real purpose is for some outside political benefit. A fair and impartial judge would exclude that testimony for those reasons, and if it was any other type of trial would sanction the attorney who made the proposition. It should be a non-partisan given stipulation that in any trial, more testimony gives a greater chance at discovering the truth. And everybody wants to get to the truth, right? So the suppression of testimony is tantamount to the suppression of truth. And the motives of those who favor this are suspect. ---
**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:** [December 20, 2019, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6419 "2019-12-20T15:01:02Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > 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. > [@Sherrerd](#): > > The twenty percent may want the forms to be observed, even if the fix is actually in. > > But the ‘seventy percent want an actual trial’ results are good news. For any national political-issue poll, a result of seventy percent is high. On so many topics the US public breaks down close to 50/50; 70% is evidence of some strong feelings along the ‘fairness is important’ axis. > > If a lot of Americans want a fair trial, then a lot of Americans may be aware–or may be capable of being made aware–that Trump has stopped all the ‘witnesses in the room’ from testifying. Or, the 20 percent are staggeringly ignorant, believing that Trump has already had an \*unfair \*trial and will now get a fair one that will ignore the evil Democrat conspiracy and exonerate him. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6420 "2019-12-20T15:18:59Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > That is about every reason in the book to exclude it. First, there is the unsupported assumption that these witnesses will either be damning or else they perjured themselves. As nobody has heard from these witnesses that assertion cannot be made in good faith. You can only make it sound like a bad faith argument by putting it in absolute terms like that. We have very good grounds for thinking that Bolton and Mulvaney will either say something damning or need to knowingly lie. That’s because several people have given mutually consistent testimony that they were in the loop and said things that would be damning if they admit them in a trial. And of course Mulvaney already alluded to something damning in front of the cameras. It’s not bad faith to point this out. But yes, hypothetically it’s possible that all the people who were willing to come forward and testify were lying, and Bolton can come out, tell the truth, and it’s exculpatory for Trump. So technically everyone here should use “may” or “possibly” around everything. > [@](#): > > Second, you concede that it will not affect the outcome of the trial even if your bald assertion is correct, and that the real purpose is for some outside political benefit. A fair and impartial judge would exclude that testimony for those reasons, and if it was any other type of trial would sanction the attorney who made the proposition. You can’t have it both ways. If this were a criminal trial then people like Mitch would have been thrown out of the jury or held in contempt (depending on how we’re mapping the roles), and no-one would be able to withhold evidence or ignore subpeonas. But since it’s instead a political trial, Mitch is King and the GOP get to continue to thumb their nose at the process. And, under these circumstances, the Dems are of course looking at political strategy and political ramifications…they could hardly do anything else. The idea that looking at it from a political POV is itself reason to throw out the trial…wow. I’m amazed at the logical contortions some people are willing to go through to defend this president. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=320) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=322)