# 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:** 87
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1721 "2019-10-03T20:22:10Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I also think it is quite possible that the president actually believes the conspiracy theories he pushes, therefore he did not possess the _mens rea_ I would consider necessary for impeachment. That would be grounds for incompetence under the 25th Amendment, which unfortunately is even _less_ likely to succeed. > ~Max Wait … so if he withholds military aid authorized by Congress to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rival in conjunction with a US investigation he knows is bogus, that’s impeachable; but if he withholds military aid authorized by Congress to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rival in conjunction with a US investigation he’s stupid or delusional enough to believe is real, that isn’t? Okay. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1722 "2019-10-03T20:27:11Z")
Insanity isn’t a good defense. In a criminal trial, it gets you sent to a mental hospital instead of a prison, and you’d probably prefer prison. In politics, it demands removal from office, via the 25th Amendment if you can’t wait for impeachment, but guess what, you’re _already_ holding an impeachment trial! If **Max S.** is actually arguing that ignorance of the law is an excuse, well, no, there’s plenty of jurisprudence that says it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1723 "2019-10-03T20:30:51Z")
Yeah, even if you really really believe in a conspiracy theory, that doesn’t make it ok to break the law trying to prove it. Gullibility is not an excuse for violating the oath of office or abuse of power. ---
**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 3, 2019, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1724 "2019-10-03T20:43:14Z")
[IRS whistleblower said to report Treasury political appointee might have tried to interfere in audit of Trump or Pence](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/irs-whistleblower-said-to-report-treasury-political-appointee-might-have-tried-to-interfere-in-audit-of-trump-or-pence/2019/10/03/0c768b34-e52e-11e9-a331-2df12d56a80b_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-low_taxwhistleblower-440pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans) > [@WaPo](#): > > An Internal Revenue Service official has filed a whistleblower complaint reporting that he was told at least one Treasury Department political appointee attempted to improperly interfere with the annual audit of the president or vice president’s tax returns, according to multiple people familiar with the document. > > Trump administration officials dismissed the whistleblower’s complaint as flimsy because it is based on conversations with other government officials. But congressional Democrats were alarmed by the complaint, now circulating on Capitol Hill, and flagged it to a federal judge. They are also discussing whether to make it public. Trump or Pence, huh? Probably Pence. I can’t imagine Trump ever trying to hide anything about his income. ---
**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 3, 2019, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1725 "2019-10-03T21:03:21Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > Wait … so if he withholds military aid authorized by Congress to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rival in conjunction with a US investigation he knows is bogus, that’s impeachable; but if he withholds military aid authorized by Congress to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rival in conjunction with a US investigation he’s stupid or delusional enough to believe is real, that isn’t? > > Okay. This is an accurate representation of my position, at least so far as it concerns a _quid pro quo_ abuse of power. I hinted at it before and have not had luck finding the relevant appropriations law, but if the President was required by law to supply military aid to Ukraine, that would be a wholly different impeachable offense. As is witness tampering. ~Max ---
**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:** [October 3, 2019, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1726 "2019-10-03T21:12:01Z")
Seriously, what more do we need? He fucking confessed on the White House lawn that he wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and if that wasn’t enough, called on China to do the same. He confessed to all that he is being investigated for and more. What does it take? ---
**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 3, 2019, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1727 "2019-10-03T21:15:47Z")
If the president claims he is not mentally capable of having committed the crime on the phone, (for reasons of mens rea) then doesn’t he need to be removed under the 25th amendment? ---
**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 3, 2019, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1728 "2019-10-03T21:16:54Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Seriously, what more do we need? He fucking confessed on the White House lawn that he wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and if that wasn’t enough, called on China to do the same. He confessed to all that he is being investigated for and more. What does it take? You are too hung up on the real world. This is devils advocate country. ---
**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 3, 2019, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1729 "2019-10-03T21:18:40Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > This is an accurate representation of my position, at least so far as it concerns a _quid pro quo_ abuse of power. > > I hinted at it before and have not had luck finding the relevant appropriations law, but if the President was required by law to supply military aid to Ukraine, that would be a wholly different impeachable offense. As is witness tampering. > > ~Max I could provide the cite in less than 30 seconds, and I have considered doing so, but I have thus far decided not to expend the effort because you keep sending confusing messages as to whether you’re just being argumentative and “helping the other side” which isn’t present in this debate. Just sayin’. Also, mens rea? ---
**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 3, 2019, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1730 "2019-10-03T21:22:55Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Seriously, what more do we need? He fucking confessed on the White House lawn that he wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and if that wasn’t enough, called on China to do the same. He confessed to all that he is being investigated for and more. What does it take? It takes Republicans with a spine. Which is highly unlikely. Trump is simply showing that he does not have to do illegal behavior privately in secret. He can do illegal behavior openly, in public and still get away with it. Because the spineless toadies in the Republican party will let him. That’s all. At some point, he’ll order the arrest of his political enemies. And the Republicans will go along with it. ---
**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 3, 2019, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1731 "2019-10-03T21:27:24Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > This is an accurate representation of my position, at least so far as it concerns a _quid pro quo_ abuse of power. > > I hinted at it before and have not had luck finding the relevant appropriations law, but if the President was required by law to supply military aid to Ukraine, that would be a wholly different impeachable offense. As is witness tampering. > > ~Max I’m sorry but " he’s stupid or delusional enough to believe is real" is not a valid defense for committing a crime. As \*\*Airbeck \*\*said: > [@](#): > > even if you really really believe in a conspiracy theory, that doesn’t make it ok to break the law trying to prove it. Gullibility is not an excuse for violating the oath of office or abuse of power. Again… Stupidity or gullibility is not a valid defense. It will not work. “I was stupid and believed stupid things” does not get you off. “I believed a nutty conspiracy theory” has never worked in any court in the land. This is just grasping at straws in my opinion. ---
**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 3, 2019, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1732 "2019-10-03T21:33:11Z")
_The Hill_: [Fox News legal analyst: Trump’s Ukraine call ‘manifested both criminal and impeachable behavior’](https://thehill.com/homenews/media/464205-fox-news-legal-analyst-trumps-ukraine-call-manifested-both-criminal-and) > [@](#): > > Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano is arguing that President Trump committed an impeachable offense during a July 25 phone call in which he pressured the Ukrainian president to investigate 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son. > > “That conversation manifested both criminal and impeachable behavior,” Napolitano writes in a Fox News column focused on a whistleblower complaint that accuses Trump of enlisting Ukraine’s help in his 2020 reelection efforts. > > Napolitano goes on to assert that “the criminal behavior to which Trump has admitted is much more grave than anything alleged or unearthed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.” Napolitano, it should be noted, also thought the Mueller report detailed impeachable conduct. ---
**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 3, 2019, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1733 "2019-10-03T21:45:50Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I don’t understand what you mean by mens rea. Are you saying (for example) that the President literally wasn’t aware of what he was saying in the phone call, as if he were senile or in a psychotic break? > > Or are you saying that he knew what he was asking of Ukraine, but didn’t see it as wrong in any possible way? > > Because if it’s the latter, that’s not mens rea. You don’t have to know what section of law you’re violating, you just have to have the intent to do what’s prohibited. (E.g., the cop who shot the guy in his own house and was convicted was thinking, “I’m going to use my pistol to kill this guy” as opposed to “I see a guy now and I am going to commit felony murder!”) Neither. I don’t mean to question the President’s mental capacity (although privately I do). I also don’t mean ignorance of the law. My understanding is that, assuming no statutory law was broken, it is not impeachable for the federal executive to investigate a company associated with a presidential candidate’s family if they have good reasons to do so. They can even ask foreign governments for assistance, no problem by me. If the law allows for discretion in supplying military aid for purposes such as cracking down on corruption, I might even be okay if that aid is used as leverage. I would hold Mr. Obama to the same standard if he investigated the Trump Organization, or some overseas business that Eric Trump is involved with. Mr. Trump may have thought he had good reasons to investigate Burisma Holdings or Mr. Hunter Biden’s involvement with that company. _A reasonable person in the President’s position might agree_. It depends on things that I don’t presently know, that Mr. Trump did know, or that a reasonable person in Mr. Trump’s position should have known. If Mr. Trump had good reasons to push the Biden investigation, no prosecutor could prove beyond a reasonable doubt\* that Mr. Trump made the request with the _intention_ of gaining political points rather than upholding U.S. interests. _That_ is what I mean by _mens rea_. Yes, I know that the Senate can convict absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But with the Republicans in control, and a Republican on the stand, why would they? ~Max ---
**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:** [October 3, 2019, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1734 "2019-10-03T21:57:20Z")
Well, that’s your (admittedly second-hand as you’re citing zero case law or Code) opinion. My opinion is that his doing so directly is wrong, and an impeachable offense. I have no desire to give up any part of the United States’ political sovereignty, and asking countries to investigate the family members of political opponents is just that: a violation of US sovereignty. Your arguments are merely opinions… not widely held ones at that… and so are mine. This Ukrainian thing… this _China_ thing, this morning… they are both automatic impeachment offenses, just as is shooting someone on Fifth Avenue. His supporters, including you, may not be willing to leave him but 60%+ Americans are just ready to move the fuck on. ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1735 "2019-10-03T21:57:32Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Neither. I don’t mean to question the President’s mental capacity (although privately I do). I also don’t mean ignorance of the law. > > My understanding is that, assuming no statutory law was broken, it is not impeachable for the federal executive to investigate a company associated with a presidential candidate’s family if they have good reasons to do so. They can even ask foreign governments for assistance, no problem by me. If the law allows for discretion in supplying military aid for purposes such as cracking down on corruption, I might even be okay if that aid is used as leverage. I would hold Mr. Obama to the same standard if he investigated the Trump Organization, or some overseas business that Eric Trump is involved with. > > Mr. Trump may have thought he had good reasons to investigate Burisma Holdings or Mr. Hunter Biden’s involvement with that company. _A reasonable person in the President’s position might agree_. It depends on things that I don’t presently know, that Mr. Trump did know, or that a reasonable person in Mr. Trump’s position should have known. > > If Mr. Trump had good reasons to push the Biden investigation, no prosecutor could prove beyond a reasonable doubt\* that Mr. Trump made the request with the _intention_ of gaining political points rather than upholding U.S. interests. _That_ is what I mean by _mens rea_. > > Yes, I know that the Senate can convict absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But with the Republicans in control, and a Republican on the stand, why would they? > > ~Max IANAL, but considering all those iffy “ifs” that have to be true for Trump’s actions to be legal, I’d say he’s toast. ---
**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 3, 2019, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1736 "2019-10-03T22:02:28Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > At what point should Democratic candidates ask our allies to investigate the Trump businesses? They could have done it [in June](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/hotel-investor-trump-evaded-taxes-panama-n1013546) if they were so inclined. Somehow they stayed out of it. Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk ---
**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 3, 2019, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1737 "2019-10-03T22:05:09Z")
Earlier today, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, [called for Pelosi to suspend the impeachment inquiry](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mccarthy-calls-pelosi-suspend-impeachment-inquiry-n1061981). [Pelosi has replied](https://www.axios.com/nancy-pelosi-kevin-mccarthy-suspend-impeachment-8ad02922-9609-4044-97e5-d905742c93a1.html) to his request: > [@Nancy Pelosi](#): > > “I received your letter this morning shortly after the world witnessed President Trump on national television asking yet another foreign power to interfere in the upcoming 2020 elections.” ---
**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 3, 2019, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1738 "2019-10-03T22:11:34Z")
> [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > Earlier today, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, [called for Pelosi to suspend the impeachment inquiry](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mccarthy-calls-pelosi-suspend-impeachment-inquiry-n1061981). > > [Pelosi has replied](https://www.axios.com/nancy-pelosi-kevin-mccarthy-suspend-impeachment-8ad02922-9609-4044-97e5-d905742c93a1.html) to his request: Awesome! She nailed it. ---
**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 3, 2019, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1739 "2019-10-03T22:15:59Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Neither. I don’t mean to question the President’s mental capacity (although privately I do). I also don’t mean ignorance of the law. > > My understanding is that, assuming no statutory law was broken, it is not impeachable for the federal executive to investigate a company associated with a presidential candidate’s family if they have good reasons to do so. They can even ask foreign governments for assistance, no problem by me. If the law allows for discretion in supplying military aid for purposes such as cracking down on corruption, I might even be okay if that aid is used as leverage. I would hold Mr. Obama to the same standard if he investigated the Trump Organization, or some overseas business that Eric Trump is involved with. > > Mr. Trump may have thought he had good reasons to investigate Burisma Holdings or Mr. Hunter Biden’s involvement with that company. _A reasonable person in the President’s position might agree_. It depends on things that I don’t presently know, that Mr. Trump did know, or that a reasonable person in Mr. Trump’s position should have known. > > If Mr. Trump had good reasons to push the Biden investigation, no prosecutor could prove beyond a reasonable doubt\* that Mr. Trump made the request with the _intention_ of gaining political points rather than upholding U.S. interests. _That_ is what I mean by _mens rea_. > > Yes, I know that the Senate can convict absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But with the Republicans in control, and a Republican on the stand, why would they? > > ~Max It’s quite bizarre to watch the incredible mental contortions you’re performing in order to find a way to put lipstick on this pig and somehow make Trump’s actions “legal.” First, legality has nothing to do with it. These are Constitutional violations we’re talking about. You aren’t going to find any “statutory” law on the books about it because this crap has never happened before. The Constitution is what we have, and it is clear. What Trump is doing violates the letter of the Constitution. Second, there is no need for a quid pro quo to have occurred. The legal standard in accordance with campaign finance law is that it is a crime to _solicit_ help from a foreign government. It is not necessary for the foreign government to agree to the help. I will say it again: The operative word is _solicit_. Third, isn’t it incumbent on any “investigator” into criminal behavior into Hunter Biden to determine what the outcomes were of any investigations that have gone before? This issue has been looked and looked at. _Not once has anyone concluded that there is any evidence of wrong doing by Hunter Biden or his father_. Fourth, this was so within Trump’s authority that the entire “administration” had to keep it secret. Pompeo couldn’t admit to being on the call for a week. Pence is pretending he knew nothing about it and played no role in the farce. Republican congress persons are ducking, mumbling and saying they haven’t had time to read the 9-page call summary. Not one of them – including you and/or Trump – is able to articulate what it was that Hunter Biden was supposed to have done wrong. It was a Trump-appointed IG who determined the whistleblower’s complaint to be urgent and credible. It was a Trump-appointed Acting NDI who testified before the Intelligence Committee in open court that the whistleblower had acted in accordance with all regulations. It was a Trump-appointed IG at the State Department who brought the discredited conspiracy theory documents proffered by Giuliani that were used to recall Ambassador Masha Yovanovich so that Giuliani could pursue his shadow agenda in Ukraine. And it was Trump-appointed former Homeland Security and counter terrorism advisor, Tom Bossert, who made it clear that the entire conspiracy theory as regards the Crowdstrike email server was thoroughly debunked. How many ways do you need to see/hear this whole line of bullshit shown to be completely false, and admit that what Trump has done is unequivocally impeachable? The only reason to make this complicated as you are doing is in the hope of muddying the waters. I hope you will just stop. ETA: IANAL. ---
**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 3, 2019, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1740 "2019-10-03T22:19:14Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Neither. I don’t mean to question the President’s mental capacity (although privately I do). I also don’t mean ignorance of the law. > > My understanding is that, assuming no statutory law was broken, it is not impeachable for the federal executive to investigate a company associated with a presidential candidate’s family if they have good reasons to do so. They can even ask foreign governments for assistance, no problem by me. If the law allows for discretion in supplying military aid for purposes such as cracking down on corruption, I might even be okay if that aid is used as leverage. I would hold Mr. Obama to the same standard if he investigated the Trump Organization, or some overseas business that Eric Trump is involved with. > > Mr. Trump may have thought he had good reasons to investigate Burisma Holdings or Mr. Hunter Biden’s involvement with that company. _A reasonable person in the President’s position might agree_. It depends on things that I don’t presently know, that Mr. Trump did know, or that a reasonable person in Mr. Trump’s position should have known. > > If Mr. Trump had good reasons to push the Biden investigation, no prosecutor could prove beyond a reasonable doubt\* that Mr. Trump made the request with the _intention_ of gaining political points rather than upholding U.S. interests. _That_ is what I mean by _mens rea_. > > Yes, I know that the Senate can convict absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But with the Republicans in control, and a Republican on the stand, why would they? > > ~Max let me try to restate this in my own words so I can see if I am following: are you saying that if there is even a fig leaf of legality used to explain presidential actions that you personally see as not just bad policy but ethically wrong, the Senate ought to give the benefit of the doubt to the President’s interpretation of the law as being the correct one, because of mens rea? I have to admit, I’m struggling to interpret what you wrote, because it seems to have nothing to do with mens rea. But it also seems bizarre that you’re implying that the Senate should defer to the President’s interpretation of laws - an absurdity in a system based on checks and balances and separation of powers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=86) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=88)