# 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:** 71
**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:** [October 1, 2019, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1401 "2019-10-01T16:06:31Z")
The Republicans are going to use any excuse they can to sever ties with Trump, to deny their complicity and their past support…and I say let them slide on this matter. If this is the crap we have to swallow to dump Trump and get the Republicans to at least partially turn their ship around, it’ll be worth the cost. ---
**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:** [October 1, 2019, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1402 "2019-10-01T16:13:15Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I don’t think there’s anything special about an impeachment investigation that should be needed for Congress to get access to any of these conversations. Neither do I. > [@Ravenman](#): > > But in terms of making things public, if more conversations are being contemplated for release, I think the horse is out of the barn for this president. I still see no reason to potentially embarrass allies and burn diplomatic bridges by releasing conversations to the public, _until such conversations are actually used to support articles of impeachment_. Our expectation that the president will be implicated does not at all convince me that the public must see the transcripts _before_ articles of impeachments are formally lodged in the House of Representatives. And again, this opinion of mine would not have prevented Mr. Trump from releasing the transcript himself - that’s his own stupidity. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1403 "2019-10-01T16:16:17Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Do you have evidence to quote, or don’t you? You have numerous links in your post. Just from one or two, maybe? Oh I get it. For it to be a real conspiracy it needs to be in writing? Whenever I put mine in writing I get arrested. Maybe you have had better results? ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1404 "2019-10-01T16:24:19Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > You quoted: > > Flynn telling the Russians that sanctions would be lifted was obviously wrong. It is not evidence that the Russians or anyone else has been controlling Trump in some way since he’s been in office. To reiterate, this is what I originally posted about and am looking for. I don’t believe it’s happening, but show some evidence. > > As for the other impeachable offenses, I have no doubt there are plenty. But I’m not talking about this. There is no functional difference between turnp being a russian spy and his being a mere sycophant. The only one I can think of is your keyboard warrioring within this little room. Over the last 3 years there have been many many arguments here about whether something was proven about trinp with evidence or not. In all these cases the reality was worse. So you are in a tradition we might say. ---
**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:** [October 1, 2019, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1405 "2019-10-01T16:24:51Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > Finally, today, a bit of movement in the right direction: 42.8% approval (down from a high of 43.1%, on Sept. 24). FiveThirtyEight’s aggregate approval figure is now down to 41.5%, thanks to three new polls — one of them, Ipsos, with a good grade (B+). ---
**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:** [October 1, 2019, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1406 "2019-10-01T16:25:19Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > That’s the standard that has to be met before the American public is entitled to know what their President has been up to on the international stage?? Really? I think you misunderstand me. Congress should be able to view the transcript in private, and if they use evidence from that transcript to support articles of impeachment, _then_ the relevant parts of the call get released to the public. If the president isn’t being impeached, then no, I do not think the public is entitled to know exactly what he says to foreign heads of state. > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Not even when the Congress has voted $400 million in arms to an allied nation, and the President decides to put a hold on it? Congress has no business being informed of that subversion of their foreign policy goals, unless they start impeachment? Surely there’s some degree of oversight between “Zero” and “impeachment”. We were talking about an “informing” the public, but you appear to have construed that to mean “oversight”. I have no problem with Congress requesting and viewing transcripts to build an impeachment case. I do have a problem if Congress releases those transcripts before they file articles of impeachment. I also acknowledge that in this case, the executive branch released the transcripts, not the Congress. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1407 "2019-10-01T16:26:43Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Why would Mitch attempt to preserve a Trump Presidency when he could have a Romney or Haley? Because the hard-core MAGAtroids will accept no substitute for their Mango Messiah, and will turn on the GOP if they are seen as stabbing him in the back. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1408 "2019-10-01T16:31:11Z")
> [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > … > The constitution says the chief justice presides and the Senate decides. The constitution doesn’t specify trial procedures but I think the simplest analogy is to say that Roberts will be the judge and the Senators will be the jury. Jurors don’t make the trial rules in courts. That said, since the Clinton impeachment was conducted pursuant to Senate rules, history suggests that the chief justice will give those rules deference unless they are crazy. Roberts is a half step above partisan hacks like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh but he is still a Republican and the Senate is controlled by Republicans so unless the Senate rules are so hamfistedly designed to preclude any result but acquittal that it would embarrass Roberts’s legitimate role in the process, Roberts will use the Senate adopted rules. And, the Senate can adopt whatever rules it wants. > > Giuliani can be both a lawyer for the government and an agent for the government at the same time. Whether he was, in fact, doing so is another question. > > Roberts might allow McConnell to preside. Nothing in the constitution prohibits it and the constitution will be Roberts’s lodestone. Since impeachment is fundamentally a political process, Roberts might even see the appeal of letting the politicians run it and reach the political result. But understand that, in my humble opinion, Roberts would be choosing to use Senate rules; he would not be bound to use them. Having decided to adhere to the Senate rules. however, he will adhere to them because to do otherwise would call his legitimate institutional role in the process into question and the thing Roberts cares most about in the world is preserving the legitimacy of the court and himself as chief justice. All this talk about Senate Rules is meaningless since Mitch can change them in a day. ---
**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:** [October 1, 2019, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1409 "2019-10-01T16:31:48Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > FiveThirtyEight’s aggregate approval figure is now down to 41.5%, thanks to three new polls — one of them, Ipsos, with a good grade (B+). (I’m putting these updates in this thread, because many have argued this has a direct bearing on whether and when certain Republican elected officials decide to support the impeachment investigation and/or impeachment itself and/or removal from office of the president.) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1410 "2019-10-01T16:32:18Z")
> [@galen\_ubal](#): > > _sigh_ > [McConnell says if House impeaches Trump, Senate rules would force him to start a trial](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mcconnell-says-if-house-impeaches-trump-senate-rules-would-force-him-to-start-a-trial/2019/09/30/4d58c2d6-e3b5-11e9-b7da-053c79b03db8_story.html) > > He said that on Monday - the second time, to my knowledge, that he’s said words to that effect. > > [Here’s an article from The Hill saying the same thing.](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/463644-mcconnell-senate-would-have-no-choice-but-to-take-up-impeachment) You trust Mitch to not lie? And yes, in both cases he said "Senate rules’- rules that can be changed overnite. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1411 "2019-10-01T16:33:44Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Mitch McConnell says [Saint Cad was right all along](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/09/30/mitch-mcconnell-senate-must-hold-trial-trump-if-house-impeaches/3820028002/). And you trust Mitch to tell the truth? :eek::dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1412 "2019-10-01T16:36:26Z")
No - I trust Mitch to expose the current party line ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1413 "2019-10-01T16:57:52Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I think you misunderstand me. Congress should be able to view the transcript in private, and if they use evidence from that transcript to support articles of impeachment, _then_ the relevant parts of the call get released to the public. > > If the president isn’t being impeached, then no, I do not think the public is entitled to know exactly what he says to foreign heads of state. If the President is using these calls to discuss matters of foreign policy or national security, then I agree that such calls should be afforded confidentiality. But if the President is talking about matters of political campaigns, ribald jokes, or what shapes the clouds outside his office look like, then there are no matters of security or policy at stake. Embarrassment does not qualify as a reason for secrecy. In fact, the Executive Order establishing the system of classifying information specifically forbids making things classified just because they are unflattering. To the extent that there are other call transcripts like this, the public should know about them, whether or not there’s an impeachment inquiry. A President has total control over what he says in a call, and if he isn’t going to talk about national security matters, he conversations should not be protected as such. I’d go so far as to say that the public should be able to FOIA such records. ---
**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:** [October 1, 2019, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1414 "2019-10-01T17:20:16Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > And what has got to do with the fact that the White House released the text of the call? 😕 I didn’t say it did. ---
**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:** [October 1, 2019, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1415 "2019-10-01T17:27:03Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > If the President is using these calls to discuss matters of foreign policy or national security, then I agree that such calls should be afforded confidentiality. > > But if the President is talking about matters of political campaigns, ribald jokes, or what shapes the clouds outside his office look like, then there are no matters of security or policy at stake. Embarrassment does not qualify as a reason for secrecy. In fact, the Executive Order establishing the system of classifying information specifically forbids making things classified just because they are unflattering. > > To the extent that there are other call transcripts like this, the public should know about them, whether or not there’s an impeachment inquiry. A President has total control over what he says in a call, and if he isn’t going to talk about national security matters, he conversations should not be protected as such. > > I’d go so far as to say that the public should be able to FOIA such records. I’m not concerned about embarrassing _our_ president. Our Congress can embarrass the president if he steps over the line. I’m concerned about other heads of state. If any call between our president and another head of state can find its way into the public eye, realize that it is not only the American public but the whole world who reads the transcript. If foreign leaders want to speak candidly they need some assurance that the whole world isn’t listening in. A call between two heads of state is not a press conference. Even if there isn’t mention of strictly classified intelligence or military operations, I do not want relations between our presidency and every other head of state to be as shallow as a joint press conference. Imagine trying to negotiate a treaty or trade agreement if foreign leaders are unwilling to even hint at any sort of compromise, lest the Americans “leak” the conversation and undermine that leader’s support at home. Now if someone in the room thinks the line has been crossed, they can report that to Congress and Congress can look into the matter. If Congress formally decides that the line might be crossed, then the Congress can ask the public what they think. But before that point, I do not support the public availability of otherwise private, top-level diplomatic communications. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1416 "2019-10-01T17:29:36Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Arguments demanding a letter or a secret recorded message from Vlad the Imperialist to Trump the Dotard as to establish that Trump takes orders from Putin, and refusing to accept anything else, are as credulous as listening to Bill Clinton say “I never had sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski” and then arguing “naw, he never touched the girl”. I cannot help it if being able to show that Trump takes orders from Putin is a hard thing to do. Of course it is. But this has not been done. It’s that simple for me. Evidently you and others need less evidence than I do. > [@](#): > > \*\* And, really, this is the hill you are wanting to plant this flag on? “I am convinced NO ONE has ordered Trump to do shit and I am also convinced that NO ONE recorded this conversation.” I have no idea where this comes from. I have clearly stated in this very thread that I am open to looking at evidence that a foreign power is directing Trump from afar and that he is doing their bidding, for whatever reason. I’ve never said I’m convinced of anything. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1417 "2019-10-01T17:32:47Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I’m not concerned about embarrassing _our_ president. Our Congress can embarrass the president if he steps over the line. I’m concerned about other heads of state. > > If any call between our president and another head of state can find its way into the public eye, realize that it is not only the American public but the whole world who reads the transcript. If foreign leaders want to speak candidly they need some assurance that the whole world isn’t listening in. A call between two heads of state is not a press conference. Even if there isn’t mention of strictly classified intelligence or military operations, I do not want relations between our presidency and every other head of state to be as shallow as a joint press conference. > > Imagine trying to negotiate a treaty or trade agreement if foreign leaders are unwilling to even hint at any sort of compromise, lest the Americans “leak” the conversation and undermine that leader’s support at home. > > Now if someone in the room thinks the line has been crossed, they can report that to Congress and Congress can look into the matter. If Congress formally decides that the line might be crossed, then the Congress can ask the public what they think. But before that point, I do not support the public availability of otherwise private, top-level diplomatic communications. > > ~Max Did you read what I wrote? Talking about policy matters should be protected. Talking about non-policy matters should not. I think that addresses everything you raised in your post. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1418 "2019-10-01T17:33:36Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Oh I get it. For it to be a real conspiracy it needs to be in writing? Whenever I put mine in writing I get arrested. Maybe you have had better results? No, you don’t get it at all. Not what I’m saying. **John Stamos’ Left Ear’s** post had five or six links. I merely asked him to quote something to support his argument from them. I looked at one and found nothing and had no desire to spend 20 minutes to go through the rest and possibly again find nothing. He could at least quote one passage. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1419 "2019-10-01T17:37:44Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Imagine trying to negotiate a treaty or trade agreement if foreign leaders are unwilling to even hint at any sort of compromise, lest the Americans “leak” the conversation and undermine that leader’s support at home. Do Presidents do that, or Ambassadors? ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1420 "2019-10-01T17:53:31Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > No, you don’t get it at all. Not what I’m saying. **John Stamos’ Left Ear’s** post had five or six links. I merely asked him to quote something to support his argument from them. I looked at one and found nothing and had no desire to spend 20 minutes to go through the rest and possibly again find nothing. He could at least quote one passage. No. To put it plainly, you are looking for written evidence of a conspiracy, and gaslighting the victims about it. Conspiracies spool out, and don’t have any of the documentation that you are stuck on, until they are investigated. It is disingenuous to play down a conspiracy because there is nothing in writing. It’s too late to call it a “non-conspiracy” certainly. When Donnie worships his dictatorial idols he is being played for their real world gains, and the US’ loss. If you want to attrbute that to narcissism or stupidity how is that relevant to any discussion? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=70) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=72)