# 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:** 74
**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, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1461 "2019-10-01T21:58:55Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > I could just as easily say this about Trump acting of his own volition. That is not Occams razor. It’s more like the reality TV crazy man theory. It is not the simplest explananation, in fact. It makes it more complicated and incoherent. “He could do ANYTHING. He’s crazy. He’s stupid and a genius too! He doesn’t need a material reason to do anything. He is the wind. He lives in his own universe. Other leaders cannot enter his fortress of intentional solitude” How rich do you think he really is by the way? This is the mental space you need to live in around the current events situation? The fact that you could do this after the responses in this thread is close to gaslighting. You are ignoring the evidence, seemingly because it is in plain sight and understandable. From Wikipedia: "A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence.[3][4] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly assumed to be the most powerful.[5] Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the “smoking gun”—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence.[6] Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence. In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[7] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,[8] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.[9] Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eyewitness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eyewitness does." Here is my question for you: What difference does it make to investigating agencies and to citizens, if donald is not being blackmailed, but instead, is simply a child playing dictator. How do the investigations differ? You need to deal with the worst possible outcomes first anyway. ---
**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, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1462 "2019-10-01T22:01:40Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > The investigation itself isn’t a matter of foreign policy, tying it to military aid is. A political act tied to a policy act doesn’t take on the status of the policy act. Generally, it takes on the unprotected status of corruption. Like, “The mayor will approve your building permit when you come up with something to blackmail my opponent with” isn’t a zoning issue. > [@](#): > > It would seem that we fundamentally disagree on the importance of secrecy in diplomacy and diplomatic relationships. How many times do I have to say this? I’m not sure if you’re ignoring what I’ve written like six times, or not understanding it, or what. Let me shorten the post so you can focus on this key issue: Foreign policy and national security matters can justifiably be withheld from the public. Electioneering cannot be justifiably hidden behind that secrecy. Do you understand the words that I’m saying? ---
**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:** [October 1, 2019, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1463 "2019-10-01T22:42:38Z")
[Interesting, but I don’t know how interesting yet:](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whistleblower-trump-impeachment/2019/10/01/b08fcfc6-e3cd-11e9-a6e8-8759c5c7f608_story.html) > [@WaPo](#): > > Key committees on Capitol Hill were notified Tuesday that the State Department’s inspector general has requested to speak with them Wednesday “to discuss and provide staff with copies of documents related to the State Department and Ukraine,” according to a letter obtained by The Washington Post. > > The offer by the office of Steve Linick, which operates mostly independently from the State Department and is responsible for investigating abuse and mismanagement, comes amid a standoff between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and House Democrats demanding documents and testimony on Ukraine-related matters for their impeachment inquiry. > > Linick’s office “obtained the documents from the acting legal adviser of the Department of State,” the letter said. The inspector general doesn’t have to seek Pompeo’s approval to approach the Hill with information, especially if it is not classified. > > It is unclear exactly what Linick will provide the committees, which include the panels in charge of foreign relations, intelligence, appropriations and oversight in the House and Senate. But the demand for any credible information related to Ukraine and the State Department is at a fever pitch as Democrats seek to build the case for Trump’s ouster out of his dealings with Ukraine’s leadership. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1464 "2019-10-01T23:00:20Z")
Co-equal branches. We shall soon see how the originalists on the Supreme Court define ‘co-equal’. Let us hope it is not that ‘some are more co-equal than others’. I said [before](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=872645), and I will say it again, Chief Justice Roberts is THE key in defining the future of American Democracy. And it is ironic that in this, or in fact any democracy, one man will wield such power. ---
**Author:** ![Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b487fb/32.png) [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walken_After_Midnight)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1465 "2019-10-01T23:03:14Z")
[Rep. Adam Schiff](https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1179167046703161344): > [@Rep. Adam Schiff](#): > > Any effort by Sec. Pompeo to intimidate or prevent witnesses from testifying will add to evidence that the Trump Admin is obstructing Congress. > > Given Pompeo’s own potential role in the affair, it will also create the inference that he is trying to cover up illicit activity. ---
**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, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1466 "2019-10-01T23:05:16Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > This would mean that Trump wants to curry favor with the Russian mob… why? For no reason at all? Why would you conclude there is no reason for him acting that way when we know much of his real estate empire was bankrolled by Russian interests? > > I mean - I get it. When you imply “I refuse to believe this until someone has delivered a notarized copy of the evidence to my home address”, I find this transparently fallacious and dishonest, but I do comprehend the tactic. (4)What I can’t understand is how one can look at the mountain of evidence indicating that Trump owes Russian entities deeply, and look at the other mountain of evidence documenting Trump making policy or statements favorable or deferential to Russian entities, and try to suggest that they definitely aren’t connected. Where do I begin? 1. I didn’t mention the mob. 2. I didn’t conclude anything. 3. You are calling me a liar and falsely accusing me of using tactics. This doesn’t even deserve a response. And you should probably be glad that this isn’t Great Debates… 4. I’ve never said things definitely aren’t connected. Please don’t make shit up. > [@](#): > > It might not be explicit commands. It might be the fact that [Russia owns the NRA](https://www.npr.org/2019/09/27/764879242/nra-was-foreign-asset-to-russia-ahead-of-2016-new-senate-report-reveals), and the NRA owns the Republicans, and Trump has a mutual ownership agreement with the Republicans. You took the time to link to that. I read it. Please summarize how it supports whatever it is you are trying to say, because I don’t want to just guess at it. > [@](#): > > This is a laughably trivial question. Do you have some kind of bone to pick with me? I asked how it would work. Why the editorializing about triviality? > [@](#): > > He talks to a hundred people a day, they talk to a hundred people a day, most of those people go to enormous lengths to conceal his conversations. According to multiple reports, [he routinely uses a personal unsecured cell phone](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/u-s-officials-concerned-trump-discussing-sensitive-information-unsecured-cellphone-n924376) and sought numerous back-channel communications to Russia and other entities, claiming that normal diplomacy demands such back-channel conversations. That link is about eavesdropping. Are you suggesting that Trump is passing on requests to his foreign puppet masters in this way? Sorry to be flippant, but I truly don’t know. ---
**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, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1467 "2019-10-01T23:13:48Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Your argument is flawed as it has been conclusively proven that Putin and Trump coordinate activities, as repeatedly shown in the Mueller Report. Here’s one famous example: > > ( **Emphasis** mine, JT. Page 49 of [https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf](https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf) ) > > So, here is the US government stating, after two years of research, that it is their belief that the two were working in concert (and there are other examples - Access Hollywood and the Podesta dump within 3 hours, anyone?)… I have been discussing Trump being controlled as _president_. That is about the campaign. This is not a nitpick. This part of the Mueller report may be suggestive of something, but it obviously cannot be used to conclude anything about Trump as president, since this he hadn’t been elected when this was going on. > [@](#): > > …and you’re claiming you need to see a _contract_? :rolleyes: ---
**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, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1468 "2019-10-01T23:18:41Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > You are ignoring the evidence, seemingly because it is in plain sight and understandable. I must be in a different thread. No one has specified any evidence to me. > [@](#): > > Here is my question for you: What difference does it make to investigating agencies and to citizens, if donald is not being blackmailed, but instead, is simply a child playing dictator. How do the investigations differ? You need to deal with the worst possible outcomes first anyway. No offense, but I haven’t talked about this and have no desire to do so. _**I am bowing out of this part of the thread. I’ll give you (and whomever) the last word.**_ ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1469 "2019-10-01T23:21:38Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > Again with the false equivalency. You’ve heard this a million times, but here we go with the million-and-first: > > 1. Blow job > 2. Using the foreign policy tools of the US government to force another country (contrary to US interests) to manufacture bullshit for the sole purpose of furthering one’s personal political future. > > Not the same. Weak way to ignore the issue. And by strawmanning it say it was about a blowjob and not perjury you, for the millionth time, refuse to accept what the impeachment was about. 1. Clinton broke the law by committing perjury. THAT is undeniable. Rather than holding a full trial, Byrd wanted to short circuit it by moving for dismissal. 2. Assuming Trump is impeached and McConnell moves for a dismissal you and the rest of the Dems will go into complete hystrionics about how evil Mitch is and how there needs to be a full trial. Something that y’all didn’t do when Sen. Byrd did the same thing. So yes it IS THE SAME. Bottom line - it’s the hypocray that it’s acceptable when your side does it but if the other side does it it is pure evil. ---
**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:** [October 1, 2019, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1470 "2019-10-01T23:25:08Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Weak way to ignore the issue. And by strawmanning it say it was about a blowjob and not perjury you, for the millionth time, refuse to accept what the impeachment was about. > > 1. Clinton broke the law by committing perjury. THAT is undeniable. Rather than holding a full trial, Byrd wanted to short circuit it by moving for dismissal. > 2. Assuming Trump is impeached and McConnell moves for a dismissal you and the rest of the Dems will go into complete hystrionics about how evil Mitch is and how there needs to be a full trial. Something that y’all didn’t do when Sen. Byrd did the same thing. > > So yes it IS THE SAME. Bottom line - it’s the hypocray that it’s acceptable when your side does it but if the other side does it it is pure evil. Okay, super. We’re massive fucking hypocrites. Also, I eat boogers, and my favorite movie is Ishtar. Now that that’s settled and you’ve won, can we drop this discussion? ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1471 "2019-10-01T23:27:13Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > I must be in a different thread. No one has specified any evidence to me. […evidence is anything presented in support of an assertion.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence) You’ve been shown a shit-load of evidence. But it isn’t really evidence you are after, is it? You are really after definitive proof. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1472 "2019-10-01T23:28:23Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > and my favorite movie is Ishtar. …Ishtar was, indeed, a great movie. I stand with you. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1473 "2019-10-01T23:32:40Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > It would seem that we fundamentally disagree on the importance of secrecy in diplomacy and diplomatic relationships. > > ~Max Max you write very sensibly but the statement above exemplifies what I think you’re missing. What you say is correct - in normal times. These are not normal times. Normally, the POTUS would have the trust of the People and the other branches of government. When you don’t trust the Administration, “secrecy in diplomacy and diplomatic relationships” provides an impenetrable cover for ‘secrecy in collusion’. To enter in to such a one-way relationship of trust is not only counter to the fundamental notions of separation of powers and co-equality, it is a hole from which there could be no escape. Any Executive Branch that participates in such a relationship is acting unconstitutionally. ---
**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:** [October 1, 2019, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1474 "2019-10-01T23:36:06Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > Max you write very sensibly but the statement above exemplifies what I think you’re missing. What you say is correct - in normal times. These are not normal times. Normally, the POTUS would have the trust of the People and the other branches of government. > > When you don’t trust the Administration, “secrecy in diplomacy and diplomatic relationships” provides an impenetrable cover for ‘secrecy in collusion’. To enter in to such a one-way relationship of trust is not only counter to the fundamental notions of separation of powers and co-equality, it is a hole from which there could be no escape. Any Executive Branch that participates in such a relationship is acting unconstitutionally. To which I would only add, hence, whistleblower protocols and protections. They exist for an actual reason. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1475 "2019-10-01T23:39:18Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Do you have some kind of bone to pick with me? I asked how it would work. Why the editorializing about triviality Why are you suggesting I have a bone to pick with you? Please demonstrate where I used the word “bone” or “pick”. I also did not use the word “editor”, nor claim to be the editor of any journalistic publication, so I don’t understand the suggestion that I am “editorializing”. This is all so confusing. ---
**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:** [October 1, 2019, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1476 "2019-10-01T23:39:38Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > Max you write very sensibly but the statement above exemplifies what I think you’re missing. What you say is correct - in normal times. These are not normal times. Normally, the POTUS would have the trust of the People and the other branches of government. > > When you don’t trust the Administration, “secrecy in diplomacy and diplomatic relationships” provides an impenetrable cover for ‘secrecy in collusion’. To enter in to such a one-way relationship of trust is not only counter to the fundamental notions of separation of powers and co-equality, it is a hole from which there could be no escape. Any Executive Branch that participates in such a relationship is acting unconstitutionally. The other side of which is, I don’t want other nations feeling secure that they can engage in shenanigans with a corrupt US president–shenanigans like looking for dirt on his political rivals. If they’re thinking about doing that, I want them to worry about it, worry that US laws will result in their shenanigans being revealed. That’s a feature, not a bug. ---
**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, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1477 "2019-10-01T23:40:09Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > I must be in a different thread. No one has specified any evidence to me. > > No offense, but I haven’t talked about this and have no desire to do so. > _**I am bowing out of this part of the thread. I’ll give you (and whomever) the last word.**_ Circumstantial evidence is evidence no? You haven’t been reading the posts have you? Occams razor can’t be two things. It needs to be the simplest explanation. \*\*This naturally must include circumstantial evidence. \*\*Can you think of any CE around this case? Occams is not an option for you. Shlockam’s razor is available, but it’s on the dull side. Wait a minute. What did you mean about “this part of the thread”? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1478 "2019-10-01T23:43:34Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > […evidence is anything presented in support of an assertion.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence) You’ve been shown a shit-load of evidence. But it isn’t really evidence you are after, is it? You are really after definitive proof. This is really what it’s all about for some apologists: “We must have absolute, definitive proof before an investigation can be begun. Oh, there is no absolute definitive proof yet? WITCH HUNT! NO investigation for you!” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1479 "2019-10-01T23:59:33Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > I could just as easily say this about Trump acting of his own volition. If you have no idea what Occam’s Razor means, sure. Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1480 "2019-10-02T00:00:27Z")
But you guys, it was a beautiful, perfect, very nice call. There has never been a call that was so nice and perfect and beautiful. Not even by Abe Lincoln. He wore that hat better, but he didn’t have telephones. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=73) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=75)