# 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:** 328
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6541 "2019-12-23T21:55:58Z")
There is no “side” to the violation of sovereignty, UV. It simply is not allowed, regardless of side, regardless of form of government, hell, regardless of form of organization: Try inviting another woman to make decisions in your household and see how your wife likes it. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6542 "2019-12-23T21:57:17Z")
Facts in evidence: 1. Trump call with Ukraine requested investigations 1a. Trump did not use official channels for investigations 2. Trump withheld aid 3. Trump wouldn’t tell anyone why aid was being withheld even though multiple congress critters (of both parties) were asking about it 4. Days before a whistleblower report (that the administration was aware of and tried to obstruct) made it’s way to congress, aid was unfrozen 5. Trump has obstructed multiple avenues of inquiry by stating that no-one under his authority was allowed to testify or produce documents I mean, come-on. You can’t say that doesn’t look guilty as hell and this doesn’t even take into account any of the testimony that was given. I’d impeach him on the obstruction alone. In fact, I think congress made a mistake by not making that the sole article of impeachment. It’s super easy to understand and doesn’t require any additional documents. ---
**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 23, 2019, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6543 "2019-12-23T22:09:13Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > \ > > 1. The ultimate issue is “Was the call criminal?” The 100 senators are there to decide that question, not John Bolton. It does not matter if Bolton thinks it was fine or thinks it was criminal. If Bolton thinks it was fine, will that change your mind? Will it nudge the needle to make you possibly question your assessment? Of course not. That’s why opinion evidence is generally not allowed at trials; it’s irrelevant. I see the board has your comments well in hand and I see no purpose in retreading what all have said so ably. I will, however, take exception to your assertion about the “ultimate issue.” The ultimate issue is not, “Was the call criminal?” Criminality does not enter into the calculus for impeachment. You, a lawyer, should remember that statutory crimes had not even been created in our government at the time the impeachment language was written into the Constitution – so it’s a little ridiculous to make such an assertion. Furthermore, the purpose for impeachment is to remove an unfit president, irrespective of whether the conduct he has engaged in is criminal. Again, criminality is not the criterion. Fitness for office is a whole different concept, and one I invite you to learn more about. Most folks can discern the difference. A president who, say, slips a little something unnoticed into his pocket while visiting a department store is guilty of a crime: Shoplifting. But that’s not a threat to national security, and hence, not an impeachable offense. But a president who extorts a promise from a foreign head of state for an announcement of an investigation into his political rival designed to benefit only himself, the president, in an upcoming election in exchange for Congressionally-approved foreign aid that protects our national security, _has_ committed an impeachable offense. It is an abuse of power, though perhaps not technically criminal. Really, discerning between these two things is not that hard. If Trump’s hands are clean, then he should release the full transcript of the Zelenskyy call. If Trump’s hands are clean, he should be willing to comply with lawful subpoenas for witnesses and documents. His conduct is bald, blatant obstruction and cannot be viewed as anything else. I’ve never seen obstruction of Congress on a scale such as this – and neither have you. Stop acting like this is normal. If Trump’s hands are clean, this “corruption investigation” should have been carried out through regular channels in full view of the public, not covered up at every step. You may be familiar with the concept of consciousness of guilt. John Bolton can and absolutely should testify not only as a first-hand witness to the call. He should also testify as an expert on national security. I mean, he was only the National Security Adviser to this administration. I think he’s qualified as an expert in this field. ---
**Author:** ![MulderMuffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldermuffin/32/2862_2.png) [@MulderMuffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MulderMuffin)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6544 "2019-12-23T22:31:24Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I’m having trouble with the inference after inference after inference to arrive at the conclusion that those on the left seem to see as obvious. And I further believe that the reason that you all believe it is so obvious stems from your previous dislike of Trump, so it is a sort of a bootstrap. We’re left with inference solely because Trump has put a blanket ban on providing any documents or testimony. The facts that have been corroborated are frankly damning, though they’re are many more facts that could strengthen or contradict the conclusions that have been drawn. If there is evidence that could contradict the Dems conclusions, it seems naive to assume that Trump wouldn’t be waving it at every reporter in DC. Therefore it is eminently reasonable to believe that such evidence does not exist. Yesterday it was reported that the aid hold was ordered 90 minutes after Trump got off the phone with Zelensky. The hold was released the day after the whistleblower report was revealed to exist. Trump claims it was to conduct reviews, though the reviews had already been done before the hold was placed and were never repeated at any time before the hold was released. As soon as aid was released Zelensky canceled a planned CNN interview where he was (arguably) going to finally give in and announce investigations. Unless someone from OMB tells Congress why aid was held and why aid was released I’m going to go with Occam and conclude it had to do with Trump trying to force Ukraine to do his bidding. That is a reasonable inference. If Trump refuses to release documentary evidence that there was a legal reason for the hold, the reasonable inference is that no such evidence exists. If Trump refuses to let anyone testify, the reasonable inference is that they have nothing to add that will exonerate him. This is not an unreasonable conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6545 "2019-12-23T22:46:45Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > You said that you aren’t interested in getting in the weeds and I see no value in trying to force you down that road since such a statement is pretty clearly a sign that you won’t give two damns and won’t read anything, let alone think about it. Ergo, I am making no argument and putting forward no evidence. > > But let’s say that you’re at a table with someone and recommend that they try a particular dish. They reply, “Sorry, I’m a vegetarian.” So you point out that it is a vegetarian dish (it really is). > > Now, if at this point, this person looks at it and it just doesn’t look appealing to them, they’re perfectly in their rights to say something like, “Nah, I’ve got enough.” Or whatever. No harm, no foul. > > But if they instead spend the rest of the meal making snide comments about how you’re trying to torture animals and mutilate their corpses, then: > > a) It doesn’t really matter whether they say that they’re not talking about you each time they make a snide comment about the one vegetarian dish, it’s still clear that they’re making an assumption about you that’s bizarre and outlandish. (I mean, unless you have some history with them of kicking puppies before their eyes, or whatever.) > b) Making that sort of show, completely out of the blue, based on nothing, is how crazy people behave, not rational adults. Excellent points. Thank you for your insights and responses. I’ll consider myself duly not having won, again. As further responses between us would seem to be pointless, given your clearly superior possession of all facts and information to what I can offer, I will now desist from any discussion with you. ---
**Author:** ![Bijou\_Drains](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bijou_drains/32/2814_2.png) [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6546 "2019-12-23T22:51:00Z")
Trump not allowing people to testify is just like not releasing tax returns - he has something to hide. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6547 "2019-12-23T22:58:28Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I’m not trying to weasel out of what I said, but it should be impeachable only if Trump did it with knowledge that Biden Sr. or Jr. did nothing wrong, or didn’t have a good faith basis for believing so. > > I mean, let’s say that there was undisputed evidence that an American citizen murdered someone while travelling in Ukraine. Let’s not fight the hypo, the American citizen is guilty of murder. Suppose Trump said that we are withholding military aid until you prosecute that American citizen because we don’t want to give our citizens the idea that they can travel and commit crimes with impunity. One might disagree with that, but it wouldn’t be impeachable would it? I think we can agree, no. > > Now change that unnamed American citizen to Hunter Biden. Does that change anything? Again, I think not. What if the crime is not murder but corruption to get a family member of an influential politician a job? Does that change it? Again, I think not. > > So just because something has two purposes and both are served, do we just look at the improper purpose and assume it controls? And I know that you all are going to slam me for saying all this and call me a partisan whore, but I think it is a good question. Can’t a president use his influence to get an investigation done of things which violates U.S. law, even if it has the incidental effect of hurting his political opponents? > > I mean, Trump did not ask for any untruthful findings; he asked for an investigation. If the investigation comes back that neither of the Bidens violated any law, who is harmed? If they did violate the law, then they shouldn’t get a pass just because they are Trump’s political opponents. > > I’ve said before that I do not like Trump personally and I only like him politically because, judges. But I am concerned about the logical extension of impeaching him for this conduct See, as I said, everything else is smokescreen and mirrors. What we are talking about trying to discover is if Trump put pressure on a foreign country to investigate a political rival. There is very strong evidence this happened. It matters not if there might have been a secondary motive. None at all. But even more, the senate needs to find the truth in this matter, whatever that might be. They seem completely uninterested in pursuing that, don’t you agree? Do you really believe the phone call and testimony already given are all there is to this? 1. It matters not at all if there were a secondary motive. Or if the primary motive were something else. It matters if Trump blackmailed a foreign government, either accidentally or not. 2. Even if there were a secondary motive and the R senators want to make that their reason for acquittal, put someone under oath who is willing to testify that was the true motive. Let’s see how many people will testify to that. If Bolton, Mulvaney and Trump himself are willing to testify to that and the R senators think that is a valid defense, then they have a reason for acquittal. But as it stands, they are saying things that no one will testify to under oath. Convenient, isn’t it? ---
**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:** [December 23, 2019, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6548 "2019-12-23T23:01:09Z")
> [@Bijou\_Drains](#): > > Trump not allowing people to testify is just like not releasing tax returns - he has something to hide. It’s still possible that his tax returns are largely just a way to push people into wasting time. Trump’s strategy in general, towards the legal system, is to use it’s slowness against it, borrowing money or stealing it as necessary in order to finance the legal costs. Before he was President, that was probably stupid since it would ultimately be cheaper and easier to simply not get into so much legal trouble (if he had sufficient self-control to do so). Now he has the entire budget of the Executive branch to dump into it. He may as well let people take him to court for refusing to talk about whether his hair is real or not, or any other thing no matter how irrelevant or petty. It’s free for him and keeps his enemies tied up and bleeding money for useless things. If it wasn’t the it was his same strategy from back before he could afford it, it would be one of the smartest things that he has done as President. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6549 "2019-12-23T23:11:09Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I’m not trying to twist your words, but all of this seems to me to come down to the belief that we just KNOW that Trump is a bad guy. We KNOW it. Anything he does cannot be for a good or proper motive. It HAS to be bad because, you know, he’s Donald Trump and he’s an asshole. It seems to me to be question begging. We “KNOW” it because that’s what the evidence demonstrates. It’s just not plausible to interpret that phone call as anything other than Trump trying to pressure Ukraine to announce an investigation into a political rival, using Congressionally approved aid as leverage. There’s no other plausible explanation for the information we have, including the whistle-blower report, the words of Trump administration officials, and the White House’s own “transcript”. > [@](#): > > I am not in any conspiracy with the Trump campaign. In fact, I believe that your side’s interpretation is the most plausible, and if I was forced to bet my savings on one side or the other, I would bet on yours. But is that enough to remove a president from office? I’m having trouble with the inference after inference after inference to arrive at the conclusion that those on the left seem to see as obvious. And I further believe that the reason that you all believe it is so obvious stems from your previous dislike of Trump, so it is a sort of a bootstrap. It’s not “inference after inference” – it’s their own words. And my previous dislike of Trump is as relevant to this as my previous dislike of a mobster who’s caught on tape threatening someone to do something illegal. And yes, this is more than enough to remove a president from office – it’s an abuse of power. Using his power and influence for personal gain, and against the interests of the US. > [@](#): > > I just don’t see the evidence in that call nor do I think a third party’s interpretation of the call is controlling or even relevant. I don’t think it’s possible to look at this evidence with anything close to objectivity and come to the conclusion (or lack thereof) you’re coming to. There are some things on which reasonable people thinking rationally cannot disagree on – this is one of them, IMO. He very clearly linked the congressionally approved aid to this “request/favor” to investigate Biden; there is no actual evidence of any wrongdoing by Biden; and MOST IMPORTANTLY _there’s no possible legitimate reason for a US President to ask a foreign government rather than US law enforcement to investigate a US citizen (much less a political rival) of wrongdoing_. You haven’t addressed that last point at all. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6550 "2019-12-23T23:13:19Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > It’s still possible that his tax returns are largely just a way to push people into wasting time. Trump’s strategy in general, towards the legal system, is to use it’s slowness against it, borrowing money or stealing it as necessary in order to finance the legal costs. > > Before he was President, that was probably stupid since it would ultimately be cheaper and easier to simply not get into so much legal trouble (if he had sufficient self-control to do so). Now he has the entire budget of the Executive branch to dump into it. He may as well let people take him to court for refusing to talk about whether his hair is real or not, or any other thing no matter how irrelevant or petty. It’s free for him and keeps his enemies tied up and bleeding money for useless things. > > If it wasn’t the it was his same strategy from back before he could afford it, it would be one of the smartest things that he has done as President. I don’t think Trump is pushing people to waste time, they’re doing that all on their own. Trump is exercising his rights and I’m sure we all agree there isn’t anything wrong with that. ---
**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 23, 2019, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6551 "2019-12-23T23:23:18Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > \ > > MOST IMPORTANTLY _there’s no possible legitimate reason for a US President to ask a foreign government rather than US law enforcement to investigate a US citizen (much less a political rival) of wrongdoing_. **You haven’t addressed that last point at all.** Neither has Trump. But don’t worry; Bill Barr is [DEL]cooking up[/DEL] working on [DEL]manufacturing[/DEL] discovering something that our national security agencies, the Mueller investigation and the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation all somehow missed. He, Giuliani and John Durham are on the case, yessiree. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6552 "2019-12-23T23:31:10Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > Neither has Trump. > > But don’t worry; Bill Barr is [DEL]cooking up[/DEL] working on [DEL]manufacturing[/DEL] discovering something that our national security agencies, the Mueller investigation and the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation all somehow missed. He, Giuliani and John Durham are on the case, yessiree. When the Mueller investigation began it was already known that the “evidence” aka “Steele Dossier” was not credible. Bill Barr is looking for answers and everyone regardless of political affiliation should welcome that. Today it’s happening to someone you hate, tomorrow it could happen to someone you love. You can’t have the intelligence apparatus targeting the opposing political campaign and expect to have a functioning democracy. ---
**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 23, 2019, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6553 "2019-12-23T23:38:53Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > **When the Mueller investigation began it was already known that the “evidence” aka “Steele Dossier” was not credible**. Bill Barr is looking for answers and everyone regardless of political affiliation should welcome that. Today it’s happening to someone you hate, tomorrow it could happen to someone you love. You can’t have the intelligence apparatus targeting the opposing political campaign and expect to have a functioning democracy. cite? ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6554 "2019-12-23T23:43:52Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I’m not trying to weasel out of what I said, but it should be impeachable only if Trump did it with knowledge that Biden Sr. or Jr. did nothing wrong, or didn’t have a good faith basis for believing so. You’ve just opened the door to asking the basis by which Trump came to believe such things, since it has not been the conclusion of the US intelligence services. At the very least, if we are expecting a ‘good faith basis’, wouldn’t we presume we could tie this to a US investigation of some sort? > [@](#): > > I mean, let’s say that there was undisputed evidence that an American citizen murdered someone while travelling in Ukraine. Let’s not fight the hypo, the American citizen is guilty of murder. Suppose Trump said that we are withholding military aid until you prosecute that American citizen because we don’t want to give our citizens the idea that they can travel and commit crimes with impunity. One might disagree with that, but it wouldn’t be impeachable would it? I think we can agree, no. Don’t we need some additional context? Was the military aid issued as a consequence of a determination that Ukraine was sufficiently zealous about prosecuting murder? And was the request for the prosecution done despite the fact that the murder was not illegal in the US (suppose, say, a clear case of self defense)? And did the President fail to be open with the public that he was withholding aid for this reason? And, when it came out that the person was in fact not a murderer, did the President immediately release the aid and try to say that he never really was withholding it after all? > [@](#): > > Now change that unnamed American citizen to Hunter Biden. Does that change anything? Again, I think not. What if the crime is not murder but corruption to get a family member of an influential politician a job? Does that change it? Again, I think not. Of course it changes things, if only to a matter of degree. Gee, the President takes a specific interest in one particular citizen and their overseas business dealings…why is that? What could possibly make it interesting to the President? I presume that you agree that the President, as head of the executive branch, has the right to ensure the IRS functions properly, and wouldn’t bat an eye if the President made some calls over to IRS to make sure they were running a tight ship. But if he called to ask about whether audits were being done on people he specifically didn’t like, _of course_ that becomes a scandalous and an abuse of power. > [@](#): > > So just because something has two purposes and both are served, do we just look at the improper purpose and assume it controls? And I know that you all are going to slam me for saying all this and call me a partisan whore, but I think it is a good question. Can’t a president use his influence to get an investigation done of things which violates U.S. law, even if it has the incidental effect of hurting his political opponents? What US law was allegedly violated, that Trump was investigating. If there are two purposes, what, specifically, was the ‘proper one’? > [@](#): > > I mean, Trump did not ask for any untruthful findings; he asked for an investigation. If the investigation comes back that neither of the Bidens violated any law, who is harmed? If they did violate the law, then they shouldn’t get a pass just because they are Trump’s political opponents. So, a President can order his political opponents audited, or their phones bugged (just an investigation) and that’s ok? > [@](#): > > I’ve said before that I do not like Trump personally and I only like him politically because, judges. But I am concerned about the logical extension of impeaching him for this conduct Using the mechanisms of the US government to ratfuck an opponent should always be impeachable. Nixon did it, Trump is doing it, and both are guilty of abusing their office for personal gain. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6555 "2019-12-23T23:50:32Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > cite? IG Report Page 186-197: > [@](#): > > The FBI conducted interviews of the Primary Sub-source in January, March, and May 2017 that raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting. In particular, the FBI’s interview with Steele’s Primary Subsource in January 2017, shortly after the FBI filed the Carter Page FISA Renewal Application No. 1 and months prior to Renewal Application No. 2, raised doubts about the reliability of Steele’s descriptions of information in his election reports. During the FBI’s January interview, at which Case Agent 1, the Supervisory Intel Analyst, and representatives of NSD were present, the Primary Sub-source told the FBI that he/she had not seen Steele’s reports until they became public that month, and that he/she made statements indicating that Steele misstated or exaggerated the Primary Sub-source’s statements in multiple sections of the reporting. 336 For example, the Primary Sub-source told the FBI that, while Report 80 stated that Trump’s alleged sexual activities at the Ritz Carlton hotel in Moscow had been “confirmed” by a senior, western staff member at the hotel, the Primary Sub-source explained that he/she reported to Steele that Trump’s alleged unorthodox sexual activity at the Ritz Carlton hotel was “rumor and speculation” and that he/she had not been able to confirm the story. A second example provided by the Primary Sub-source was Report 134’s description of a meeting allegedly held between Carter Page and Igor Sechin, the President of Rosneft, a Russian energy conglomerate. 337 Report 134 stated t hat, according to a “close associate” of Sechin, Sechin offered “PAGE/TRUMP’s associates the brokerage of up to a 19 percent (privatized) stake in Rosneft” in return for the lifting of sanctions against the company. 338 The Primary Sub-source told the FBI that one of his/ her subsources furnished information for that part of Report 134 through a text message, but said that the sub-source never stated that Sechin had offered a brokerage interest to Page. 339 We reviewed the texts and did not find any discussion of a bribe, whether as an interest in Rosneft itself or a “brokerage.” ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6556 "2019-12-23T23:54:58Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > Trump is exercising his rights and I’m sure we all agree there isn’t anything wrong with that. What right does Trump have to tell other people to ignore subpoenas? ---
**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 23, 2019, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6557 "2019-12-23T23:55:58Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > When the Mueller investigation began it was already known that the “evidence” aka “Steele Dossier” was not credible. Bill Barr is looking for answers and everyone regardless of political affiliation should welcome that. Today it’s happening to someone you hate, tomorrow it could happen to someone you love. You can’t have the intelligence apparatus targeting the opposing political campaign and expect to have a functioning democracy. You don’t really understand who Christopher Steele is, do you? Or what raw intelligence is? Don’t bother answering. The things you say make it obvious you don’t, and my questions are rhetorical. Moreover, the investigation began in April of 2016, before Christopher Steele’s raw intelligence had even been passed to the FBI, in Rome, in July of 2016. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6558 "2019-12-23T23:57:05Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > What right does Trump have to tell other people to ignore subpoenas? [Executive Privilege](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege) > [@](#): > > Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications. The right comes into effect when revealing information would impair governmental functions. Neither executive privilege nor the oversight power of Congress is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution.[1] However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[2] ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6559 "2019-12-23T23:58:10Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > You don’t really understand who Christopher Steele is, do you? Or what raw intelligence is? Don’t bother answering. The things you say make it obvious you don’t, and my questions are rhetorical. > > Moreover, the investigation began in April of 2016, before Christopher Steele’s raw intelligence had even been passed to the FBI, in Rome, in July of 2016. Cite? ---
**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 24, 2019, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6560 "2019-12-24T00:03:41Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > Cite? [Start here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Steele). (Wikipedia) The facts around this are also available in the [Mueller Report](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report.html) and many other sources using your Google skills. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=327) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=329)