# 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:** 336
**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:** [January 3, 2020, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6701 "2020-01-03T00:21:52Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > I thought it was a done deal he was able to use the emergency declaration to get the funds. Now I’m all kinds of confused. > > From your cite there was a July decision by the supreme court that blocked an earlier injunction, allowing construction to begin. That was $2.5 billion worth. > > I’m not sure where all this puts the funds from the emergency declaration. Is all or part of the money now blocked? The funds listed are $3.6 billion and $2.5 billion. Are they from the same source? > > Based on some other sources, it looks like the original diversion was for $6.1 billion, so it would seem he got at least part of what he wanted. Or do I not have that right? No, you’re right and I should read my own cites a little more closely. When I read your post, I remembered seeing an article on Reuters awhile back referring to the California decision (couldn’t find that article) and the NPR article reminded me of the earlier ruling from Texas, also blocking Trump from using military funds for his wall. I’d forgotten about the lifting of the injunction by SCOTUS in July while the case is under review by the 9th Circuit. Mighty nice of them. Usually such a ruling would follow precedent – which would obviously be to leave the injunction in place, since there are already well established prohibitions against the executive branch overriding congressionally-approved funding allocations. Sorry for the confusion. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6702 "2020-01-03T00:37:48Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > No, you’re right and I should read my own cites a little more closely. > > When I read your post, I remembered seeing an article on Reuters awhile back referring to the California decision (couldn’t find that article) and the NPR article reminded me of the earlier ruling from Texas, also blocking Trump from using military funds for his wall. > > I’d forgotten about the lifting of the injunction by SCOTUS in July while the case is under review by the 9th Circuit. Mighty nice of them. Usually such a ruling would follow precedent – which would obviously be to leave the injunction in place, since there are already well established prohibitions against the executive branch overriding congressionally-approved funding allocations. > > Sorry for the confusion. So at this point $3.6 billion is blocked (until further appeal, I guess?) and $2.5 billion is available while the 9th circuit reviews? With seemingly _every_ decision this administration makes ending up in the courts, it is impossible for me to keep straight where things are. Thanks for helping to clarify for me. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6703 "2020-01-03T00:45:33Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Now, it happens that the Constitution removes the President’s power of pardon under impeachment. He has now been impeached. Any acts of perjury or other criminal activities, if found guilty, even after the trial should be pardon-proof.\* > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > - I would expect. I thought that meant he couldn’t pardon an impeachment, not that he couldn’t pardon if impeached. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6704 "2020-01-03T00:50:24Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I thought that meant he couldn’t pardon an impeachment, not that he couldn’t pardon if impeached. My take as well. He can’t pardon away an impeachment nor could he pardon anyone who is impeached and convicted. I believe there is no clear consensus on whether he could pardon himself of any crimes that are tried in the courts. ---
**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:** [January 3, 2020, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6705 "2020-01-03T01:00:27Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > So at this point $3.6 billion is blocked (until further appeal, I guess?) and $2.5 billion is available while the 9th circuit reviews? > > With seemingly _every_ decision this administration makes ending up in the courts, it is impossible for me to keep straight where things are. Thanks for helping to clarify for me. I think things stand as you have stated. And obviously, we’re all confused trying to keep track of everything and all the various court decisions. It is a very lot to keep straight. ---
**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:** [January 3, 2020, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6706 "2020-01-03T01:01:36Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I thought that meant he couldn’t pardon an impeachment, not that he couldn’t pardon if impeached. > [@BobLibDem](#): > > My take as well. He can’t pardon away an impeachment nor could he pardon anyone who is impeached and convicted. I believe there is no clear consensus on whether he could pardon himself of any crimes that are tried in the courts. That’s my understanding, too. Trump can’t pardon away his own impeachment, but he can pardon other people who’ve been indicted on federal charges–but not people who’ve been impeached by the House, or people indicted under state statutes. (“Indicted” rather than just “convicted,” because apparently the presidential pardon power can stop judicial proceedings that are still underway.) It certainly is a very handy power to have when there are so many people who could tell tales about Trump’s own doings, were they so inclined. ---
**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:** [January 3, 2020, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6707 "2020-01-03T02:54:20Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I thought that meant he couldn’t pardon an impeachment, not that he couldn’t pardon if impeached. > [@BobLibDem](#): > > My take as well. He can’t pardon away an impeachment nor could he pardon anyone who is impeached and convicted. I believe there is no clear consensus on whether he could pardon himself of any crimes that are tried in the courts. Federalist 69: > [@](#): > > Thirdly. The power of the President, in respect to pardons, would extend to all cases, EXCEPT THOSE OF IMPEACHMENT. The governor of New York may pardon in all cases, even in those of impeachment, except for treason and murder. Is not the power of the governor, in this article, on a calculation of political consequences, greater than that of the President? All conspiracies and plots against the government, which have not been matured into actual treason, may be screened from punishment of every kind, by the interposition of the prerogative of pardoning. **If a governor of New York, therefore, should be at the head of any such conspiracy, until the design had been ripened into actual hostility he could insure his accomplices and adherents an entire impunity.** A President of the Union, on the other hand, though he may even pardon treason, when prosecuted in the ordinary course of law, could shelter no offender, in any degree, from the effects of impeachment and conviction. **Would not the prospect of a total indemnity for all the preliminary steps be a greater temptation to undertake and persevere in an enterprise against the public liberty, than the mere prospect of an exemption from death and confiscation, if the final execution of the design, upon an actual appeal to arms, should miscarry?** Would this last expectation have any influence at all, when the probability was computed, that the person who was to afford that exemption might himself be involved in the consequences of the measure, and might be incapacitated by his agency in it from affording the desired impunity? The better to judge of this matter, it will be necessary to recollect, that, by the proposed Constitution, the offense of treason is limited "to levying war upon the United States, and adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort’'; and that by the laws of New York it is confined within similar bounds. (Emphasis added.) While it is the sentence between the two highlighted that states a direct commentary on the pardon power, that direct statement fails to clearly state an answer to the matter in question. However, the sentences which I did highlight make clear what type of eventuality they are protecting against by including the impeachment exception. To translate to a more modern English: Let’s say that the governor of New York decides to throw a coup against the state. Under her power of pardon, she can’t pardon an individual for treason or murder, but she is not limited if it’s a domestic-only action like a coup and _she is not prevented from interfering in a case against herself._ When the coup is discovered, she could pardon her accomplices such that they can flaunt the law with impunity, having complete protection from all possible punishment. […] If a person had such freedom of pardon, you are left in a situation where you are bizarrely encouraging them towards this sort of abuse of power as there is no negative ramifications from any such nefarious activity and the chance of achieving whatever power grab aimed for should you succeed. And so…we added the “except regarding impeachment” modifier. ---
**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:** [January 3, 2020, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6708 "2020-01-03T03:04:04Z")
Missed the edit window but I should have written “accomplices and adherents” instead of just “accomplices”, and I should have emphasized those words. It’s hard to write with feather pen and even just in general, you don’t add extras about accomplices and adherents getting away with transgressions, to a legalistic document, for shits and giggles. ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6709 "2020-01-03T03:17:42Z")
no ---
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6710 "2020-01-03T13:28:36Z")
I guess there are factual answers to the following questions but, since its impeachment-related, I figured I post here. If mods disagree go ahead and move it. Who makes redactions, on what basis do they do so and are there any provision for reviewing the decisions? Can embarassing (or criminal) things simply be redacted just because and they are buried forever? Assuming no leaks. ---
**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:** [January 4, 2020, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6711 "2020-01-04T04:10:03Z")
Looks like Lev Parnas is moving forward with sharing documentation of his activities with Congress: > **[Indicted Giuliani associate close to sharing evidence with Intel Committee](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/03/lev-parnas-evidence-house-intel-093319)** > > The new files could add to the weight of evidence Intelligence Committee investigators uncovered. Meanwhile, chirps in the background: [https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/474600-graham-invites-giuliani-to-testify-about-recent-ukraine-trip](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/474600-graham-invites-giuliani-to-testify-about-recent-ukraine-trip) (3 weeks pass) ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2020, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6712 "2020-01-04T09:09:13Z")
I have no idea of the validity of this report but we may be hearing more about this. “Explosive report indicates that Donald Trump’s loans from Deutsche Bank were backed by Russia” > **[Explosive report indicates that Donald Trump's loans from Deutsche Bank were...](https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/3/1909205/-Explosive-report-indicates-that-Donald-Trump-s-loans-from-Deutsche-Bank-were-back-by-Russia)** > > The reasons that Donald Trump would need a massive distraction at this point are numerous. Every day seems to produce fresh evidence that the White House was fully aware that Trump’s delay of military assistance to Ukraine was simply against the... > [@](#): > > According to [URL [http://forensicnews.net/2019/12/30/trump-deutsche-bank-loans-underwritten-by-russian-state-owned-bank-whistleblower-told-fbi/](http://forensicnews.net/2019/12/30/trump-deutsche-bank-loans-underwritten-by-russian-state-owned-bank-whistleblower-told-fbi/)]Forensic News Trump’s loans from Deutsch Bank were underwritten by a Russian state-owned bank. That news reportedly comes from a whistleblower with access to documents from both Deutsche Bank and Russia’s state-owned VTB Bank. VTB Bank was also the proposed lender on the never-completed Trump Tower Moscow project. [http://forensicnews.net/2019/12/30/trump-deutsche-bank-loans-underwritten-by-russian-state-owned-bank-whistleblower-told-fbi/](http://forensicnews.net/2019/12/30/trump-deutsche-bank-loans-underwritten-by-russian-state-owned-bank-whistleblower-told-fbi/) ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2020, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6713 "2020-01-04T09:18:13Z")
[quote=“davidm, post:6712, topic:840771”] I have no idea of the validity of this report but we [http://forensicnews.net/2019/12/30/trump-deutsche-bank-loans-underwritten-by-russian-state-owned-bank-whistleblower-told-fbi/](http://forensicnews.net/2019/12/30/trump-deutsche-bank-loans-underwritten-by-russian-state-owned-bank-whistleblower-told-fbi/) > [@](#): > > Deutsche Bank’s loans to Donald Trump were underwritten by Russian state-owned VTB Bank, according to the whistleblower whose collection of thousands of bank documents and internal communications have captured the recent attention of federal investigators. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2020, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6714 "2020-01-04T09:29:45Z")
[http://forensicnews.net/2019/12/30/trump-deutsche-bank-loans-underwritten-by-russian-state-owned-bank-whistleblower-told-fbi/](http://forensicnews.net/2019/12/30/trump-deutsche-bank-loans-underwritten-by-russian-state-owned-bank-whistleblower-told-fbi/) > [@](#): > > Deutsche Bank’s loans to Donald Trump were underwritten by Russian state-owned VTB Bank, according to the whistleblower whose collection of thousands of bank documents and internal communications have captured the recent attention of federal investigators. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2020, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6715 "2020-01-04T09:36:43Z")
Sorry about the multiple messed up posts. Server hiccup. ---
**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:** [January 4, 2020, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6716 "2020-01-04T10:17:27Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > I have no idea of the validity of this report but we may be hearing more about this. > > “Explosive report indicates that Donald Trump’s loans from Deutsche Bank were backed by Russia” > [Explosive report indicates that Donald Trump's loans from Deutsche Bank were backed by Russia](https://www.dailykos.com/story/2020/1/3/1909205/-Explosive-report-indicates-that-Donald-Trump-s-loans-from-Deutsche-Bank-were-back-by-Russia) > > [http://forensicnews.net/2019/12/30/trump-deutsche-bank-loans-underwritten-by-russian-state-owned-bank-whistleblower-told-fbi/](http://forensicnews.net/2019/12/30/trump-deutsche-bank-loans-underwritten-by-russian-state-owned-bank-whistleblower-told-fbi/) New York Times account of the whistleblower: > [@](#): > > An endless procession of bank executives and friends of the Broeksmit family have warned me that Mr. Broeksmit is not to be trusted, and, well, they might have a point. His drug use has sent him reeling between manias and stupors. He has a maddening habit of leaping to outrageous conclusions and then bending facts to fit far-fetched theories. He fantasizes about seeing his story told by Hollywood, and I sometimes wonder whether he’s manipulating me to achieve that ambition. He can be impatient, erratic and abusive. A few days ago, irate that he was not named in a blurb for my book on Amazon, among other perceived slights, he sent me a string of texts claiming that he’d taken out a brokerage account in my name and traded on secret information I’d supposedly fed him. (This is not true.) A little later, he left me a voice mail message saying it was all a joke. It looks like he’s a large problem child with access to real historic banking information. It sounds like, if he actually has such information, he would have handed it over to NYT a year ago. If we’re only now hearing about it then either it’s not real or his documentation is not persuasive without further corroboration. For the moment, I’d classify it in the same realm as all the other random one-offs that make it seem like we’re finally seeing a chink in the armor. Either they’re fake, they’re speculative, or they’re the Feds asking the media to tell a story that would get someone to pick up a phone and call someone else and talk about a crime. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2020, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6717 "2020-01-04T10:41:15Z")
Thanks. I wasn’t sure what to make of it. I’ve never heard of “Forensic News” before. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2020, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6718 "2020-01-04T10:46:06Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > I have no idea of the validity of this report but we may be hearing more about this. > > “Explosive report indicates that Donald Trump’s loans from Deutsche Bank were backed by Russia” > [Explosive report indicates that Donald Trump's loans from Deutsche Bank were backed by Russia](https://www.dailykos.com/story/2020/1/3/1909205/-Explosive-report-indicates-that-Donald-Trump-s-loans-from-Deutsche-Bank-were-back-by-Russia) > > [http://forensicnews.net/2019/12/30/trump-deutsche-bank-loans-underwritten-by-russian-state-owned-bank-whistleblower-told-fbi/](http://forensicnews.net/2019/12/30/trump-deutsche-bank-loans-underwritten-by-russian-state-owned-bank-whistleblower-told-fbi/) The following may be just a bit off-topic, but the above brings this up: The above-linked article in Forensic News includes a link to another interesting article: [The Battle for Trump’s Financial Records: What Happens Tomorrow at the Supreme Court?](https://forensicnews.net/2019/12/12/the-battle-for-trumps-financial-records-what-happens-tomorrow-at-the-supreme-court/), Bobby DeNault and Jess Coleman, _Forensic News_, Dec. 12, 2019. Are you confused by the plethora of lawsuits flying all around, trying to get Trump’s tax returns, business records, and all that? This article gives a fairly detailed plain-English summary of all the cases that are heading for the Supreme Court, the relevant parties in each case, their histories in the lower courts, and their predictions as to what the Supreme Court will do with them, and a comparison of the issues and questions before the courts in each case. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2020, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6719 "2020-01-06T17:12:03Z")
Breaking news: NY Times is reporting that John Bolton has said that, if subpoenaed, he will testify in a Senate impeachment trial. This is going to be interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Translucent\_Daydream](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/translucent_daydream/32/16170_2.png) [@Translucent\_Daydream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Translucent_Daydream)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2020, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/6720 "2020-01-06T17:23:54Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > Breaking news: NY Times is reporting that John Bolton has said that, if subpoenaed, he will testify in a Senate impeachment trial. > > This is going to be interesting. Do you think he is going to say something damning? Would anyone that the Dems want to have testify say anything that is going to shift the needle any in the Senate? I’m not sure that this is something to celebrate if you want Trump convicted in the Senate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=335) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=337)