# 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:** 62
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1221 "2019-09-30T15:27:41Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Sorry, Max S. but contemporaneous records are not “by definition hearsay”. My understanding of the rules of evidence is that all evidence must be presented by a human being under oath in a courtroom, subject to cross-examination, or inferred based on such evidence. No exceptions. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1222 "2019-09-30T15:31:01Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > My understanding of the rules of evidence is that all evidence must be presented by a human being under oath in a courtroom, subject to cross-examination, or inferred based on such evidence. No exceptions. > > ~Max So what you are saying is that all evidence presented before Congress is disqualified because it isn’t a court of law? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1223 "2019-09-30T15:34:29Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So what you are saying is that all evidence presented before Congress is disqualified because it isn’t a court of law? [DEL]I did not make that assertion[/DEL]. Congress is free to impeach and convict the president based on hearsay, but I don’t think they should. Congress can also administer the oath to testify truthfully, if that’s what you mean. ETA: whoops, I see what you mean. Just strike where I said “in a courtroom”. ~Max ---
**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:** [September 30, 2019, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1224 "2019-09-30T15:46:28Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Yeah it is pretty clear under Rule VI. VP (Pence) notifies CJOTUS of when the trial is to be held and swears in CJ Roberts. After that CJ Roberts presides and calls them to order (implied by Rule VII). > > The people thinking McConnell has it in his power to stop the trial (NYT, politico) have never read the Senate Rules on Impeachment and thinks it’s like every other Senate procedure. Okay, so Pence can stop the trial by never formally notifying Roberts that they want a trial to commence. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1225 "2019-09-30T15:54:00Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Okay, so Pence can stop the trial by never formally notifying Roberts that they want a trial to commence. I suppose the Senate could change their rules if the Vice President doesn’t cooperate. That would require a (bipartisan) supermajority to overcome the filibuster before a rule change can be voted on. ~Max ---
**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:** [September 30, 2019, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1226 "2019-09-30T15:56:23Z")
The side-track about hearsay, the speculation about how afraid Democrats will be to impeach their best boogeyman, the hijacks about Hunter: these are all really interesting. I presume that if Republicans could defend Trump’s behavior on its own merits, that’s what they’d be doing. They’d be explaining why it’s appropriate to involve Trump’s personal lawyer in a request to a foreign nation to investigate Trump’s political rival, and then to sequester the record of the request. Instead of explaining why that’s appropriate, we get the Hunter hijack, the Boogeyman bullshit, the hearsay horsepucky. I won’t say that our conservatives here necessarily offer the best defenses available to Republicans–but I will say that I haven’t heard any other Republicans offering better defenses. ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1227 "2019-09-30T15:56:28Z")
Thanks for the illuminating responses to my question about keeping the whistleblower’s identity secret. Follow-up question: If the committee members do find out the whistleblower’s identity, what are the odds they’d keep it from Trump, and what consequences could there be for the whistleblower if Trump finds out? ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1228 "2019-09-30T15:58:57Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Can someone tell me how this argument [makes any sense?](https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1178678932511559680): > > "We can’t have process designed to destroy the presidency that relies on anonymous accusers or hearsay accusations. > > If the transcript of the phone call is the only basis for impeachment – what a joke." > > The transcript was released by the White House. Trump has corroborated what it says. I don’t get how this makes even enough sense for a GOP talking point. Anyway, they are twisting facts again. Hearsay is inadmissible at trial. We are not at that stage yet. Law enforcement officers are NOT prohibited for using credible hearsay statements during an investigation. This is another Trumpian thing, the idea that you can’t investigate a crime until you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Which, if it were true, would mean no one could ever be investigated for anything. ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1229 "2019-09-30T16:01:48Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > Anyway, they are twisting facts again. Hearsay is inadmissible at trial. We are not at that stage yet. Law enforcement officers are NOT prohibited for using credible hearsay statements during an investigation. > > This is another Trumpian thing, the idea that you can’t investigate a crime until you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Which, if it were true, would mean no one could ever be investigated for anything. And of course, this would be a trial for removal from office. I doubt that the Federal rules of evidence were in play either of the last two times we did this. ---
**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:** [September 30, 2019, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1230 "2019-09-30T16:05:59Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > There is a county in Texas where Beto received a _total_ of six votes. Even in Texas, it has a reputation as being the most conservative county in the State. > > For the past 25 years it has been served in the House of Representatives by Mac Thornberry, Republican. > > [Until today.](https://twitter.com/MacTXPress/status/1178684292857237504?s=19) > > Mac becomes the sixth Texas Republican to “retire”. Given his long years of service, this one isn’t _too_ outside the norm, but still… guess Mac didn’t want to spend his days up to 2020 defending treachery. For those of us who have been following politics for a long time, Mac was elected in 1994, riding Gingrich’s “Contract With America” wave. And, with his departure, that’s it for these 1994 Republicans - there are no more left. Just FYI… now back to your regularly scheduled impeachment thread… ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1231 "2019-09-30T16:06:06Z")
> [@nelliebly](#): > > … and what consequences could there be for the whistleblower if Trump finds out? If he wants to walk across Midtown Manhattan, better to ride the crosstown bus. ---
**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:** [September 30, 2019, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1232 "2019-09-30T16:07:01Z")
… and, no matter what, _avoid Fifth Avenue!_ ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1233 "2019-09-30T16:14:03Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I presume that if Republicans could defend Trump’s behavior on its own merits, that’s what they’d be doing. They’d be explaining why it’s appropriate to involve Trump’s personal lawyer in a request to a foreign nation to investigate Trump’s political rival, and then to sequester the record of the request. I already admitted that [POST=21883945]if the allegations were true, I would support impeachment and conviction[/POST]. If I were a lawyer for the president or devoted to his person I might go to further lengths to defend his actions, but I’m not, so I won’t. The burden is on them; being a Republican does not mean I _need_ to speculate about (much less substantiate) some alternative rationale. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I won’t say that our conservatives here necessarily offer the best defenses available to Republicans–but I will say that I haven’t heard any other Republicans offering better defenses. I’ll take it as a compliment. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1234 "2019-09-30T16:20:55Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Gonna cross-post this: > > **If you’re not calling your Representatives and Senators _today_, then you’re not moving the needle.** > > Make your calls. Even if you support this shit, make your calls. From the board wide forum rules: > [@Terms of Service and FAQ](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terms-of-service-and-faq/823562/2): > > **Calls to Action** - Do not instigate members to take action for or against any issue or entity. Do not post phone numbers, email addresses or any other personally identifiable information of any entity in this regard. Threads calling for folks to take actions (political, charitable, personal, etc.) are prohibited unless there is prior approval from a moderator or administrator. There has been quite a bit of this in the thread. It’s fast moving, and people are obviously interested in the topic. I think people can figure out if they want to take additional action on their own. The purpose of the board is one of discussion, not a mechanism for calls to action. There is a fine line to be sure, and I’m only quoting this one post because it was the most recent. **But as a note to everyone, please avoid calls to action such as this.** [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1235 "2019-09-30T16:22:35Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > Anyway, they are twisting facts again. Hearsay is inadmissible at trial. We are not at that stage yet. Law enforcement officers are NOT prohibited for using credible hearsay statements during an investigation. > > This is another Trumpian thing, the idea that you can’t investigate a crime until you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Which, if it were true, would mean no one could ever be investigated for anything. In Lindsey Graham’s defense, he is a Senator and his vote comes during the trial stage. He is calling for the House to have someone testify based on direct knowledge. That way the Republicans can cross-examine the witness - you can’t cross-examine a piece of paper. ~Max ---
**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:** [September 30, 2019, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1236 "2019-09-30T16:27:04Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > In Lindsey Graham’s defense, he is a Senator and his vote comes during the trial stage. He is calling for the House to have someone testify based on direct knowledge. That way the Republicans can cross-examine the witness - you can’t cross-examine a piece of paper. > > ~Max Someone with direct knowledge already corroborated what is asserted in the whistleblower’s complaint. It was Trump, when he released the call summary. “A perfect call.” ---
**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:** [September 30, 2019, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1237 "2019-09-30T16:33:46Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > In Lindsey Graham’s defense, he is a Senator and his vote comes during the trial stage. He is calling for the House to have someone testify based on direct knowledge. That way the Republicans can cross-examine the witness - you can’t cross-examine a piece of paper. > > ~Max The White House released this transcript as their own version of events. Why is this hard to understand? This isn’t hearsay - this is the White House saying “here’s what happened”! ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1238 "2019-09-30T16:41:55Z")
Exactly, if Trump wants to go to trial in front of the senate and explain why he himself released a fake transcript of a call, explain what was actually said on the call, and why he didn’t catch the error before and why we should now believe him, he’s free to do that. Until then, the transcript of the call is his own version of events, and it’s repugnant. There’s really no further corroboration or investigation required, as far as I’m concerned. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1239 "2019-09-30T16:42:50Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > Two days ago, I wrote the following here, referring to FiveRhirtyEight’s moving aggregate of “approve/disapprove of Trump” polls: > > “This approval measure is actually UP a bit as of today, reflecting three polls — two of them given a “B” grade — conducted over the past two or three days. Not good…” > > No one here responded to this. I know it’s early days yet, and a lot of people are simply clueless (so far) about the Ukraine thing, but shouldn’t this worry us a little? > > Might it suggest that maybe the future ceiling for the public approving of Trump’s impeachment and/or removal might be lower, and harder, than we hope? And that, therefore, few senators will switch over? > > I know, things could change. Still, this disturbs me. Finally, today, a bit of movement in the right direction: 42.8% approval (down from a high of 43.1%, on Sept. 24). In statistical combination with a couple earlier polls (e.g., YouGov’s 41% figure), this is just based on one C+ poll by Rasmussen/Pulse Opinion, conducted Sept 25-29. The raw number was 49% approval, adjusted to 43% presumably due to Rasmussen’s known, well-attested Republican bias. ---
**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:** [September 30, 2019, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1240 "2019-09-30T16:44:53Z")
I said it before earlier in this thread, and I’ll say it again: One of the most important questions asked of Acting DNI Maguire in his open hearing before the House Intelligence Committee last week was whether the whistleblower’s complaint accurately described the conversation as represented in Trump’s call summary. _He responded that it did_. And Trump himself publicly stated that there was “nothing wrong with that call.” It just doesn’t get any clearer that that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=61) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=63)