# 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:** 88
**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, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1741 "2019-10-03T22:19:38Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > 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. I’m not a lawyer or a Senator, but if I was a Senator I would place the burden on House managers to convince me that at least one of those conditions had been violated (except breaking statutory law) before I vote to convict based on a _quid pro quo_ abuse of power. If there was a statutory violation, I would have a wholly different set of criteria and there would be a different article of impeachment. ~Max ---
**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, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1742 "2019-10-03T22:25:29Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I’m not a lawyer or a Senator, but if I was a Senator I would place the burden on House managers to convince me that at least one of those conditions had been violated (except breaking statutory law) before I vote to convict based on a _quid pro quo_ abuse of power. > > If there was a statutory violation, I would have a wholly different set of criteria and there would be a different article of impeachment. > > ~Max That burden shouldn’t be too hard. Shit, they can just use **Aspenglow** ’s post (#1738). ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1743 "2019-10-03T22:28:23Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I’m not a lawyer or a Senator, but if I was a Senator I would place the burden on House managers to convince me that at least one of those conditions had been violated (except breaking statutory law) before I vote to convict based on a _quid pro quo_ abuse of power. > > … It might just be me, but I have nothing but trouble trying to understand what it is you are stating at all, in all of your posts in this thread. A quid pro quo, which there was, is not the root of Trump’s Ukraine phone call B.S. The fact that he was asking Ukraine to imvestigate his opponent, an American citizen, was. That’s impeachable. Sure, there was an implied quid pro quo. But none of this depends on that. ---
**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 3, 2019, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1744 "2019-10-03T22:38:26Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Then that’s what you should be doing: convincing Republicans that there are no grounds for an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden. ~Max No! The issue here is Trump’s behaviour and whether the is guilty of ‘high crimes and misdemeanours’. What Joe or Hunter Biden did or did not do has nothing to do with it. Not only does “convincing Republicans” merely play into their hands by suggesting that there _may_ be something implicating Biden, it also plays into their hands by deflecting from the current criminal, treasonous behaviour of The President. ---
**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, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1745 "2019-10-03T22:39:15Z")
What do folks think will be the eventual fate of the following (non-Trump) figures: Resignation? Fired by Trump? Conviction and pardon? Conviction and prison? Serve out term until January 2021? Rudy Giuliani Bill Barr Mike Pompeo Mitch McConnell Joseph Maguire Mike Pence ---
**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, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1746 "2019-10-03T22:57:21Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > No! The issue here is Trump’s behaviour and whether the is guilty of ‘high crimes and misdemeanours’. What Joe or Hunter Biden did or did not do has nothing to do with it. > > Not only does “convincing Republicans” merely play into their hands by suggesting that there _may_ be something implicating Biden, it also plays into their hands by deflecting from the current criminal, treasonous behaviour of The President. Which is the entire point of Max’s arguments. ---
**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, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1747 "2019-10-03T23:16:37Z")
[_NYT_](https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1179896431957684225): > [@](#): > > Breaking News: U.S. diplomats drafted a statement for Ukraine’s leader that would have committed him to investigations of President Trump’s rivals. ---
**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, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1748 "2019-10-03T23:19:14Z")
> [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > [_NYT_](https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1179896431957684225): Key part of the article: > [@](#): > > Mr. Volker spent Thursday on Capitol Hill being questioned by House investigators as Democrats pursued their impeachment inquiry into Mr. Trump’s actions. He disclosed a set of texts in September in which Bill Taylor, the top American diplomat in Ukraine, alluded to Mr. Trump’s decision earlier in the summer to freeze a military aid package to the country. **He told Mr. Sondland and Mr. Volker: “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”** Ouch. ---
**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, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1749 "2019-10-03T23:30:01Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > 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.” Admitted, I am bending over backwards to put lipstick on a pig. But when **iiandyiiii** said I was playing devil’s advocate, he wasn’t entirely accurate. If I were a (Republican, which I am) Senator I would really need to be certain before convicting the President. At no point so far have I been convinced to my satisfaction that the President committed an impeachable act, even if I think he probably did. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > 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. It is not clear to me, as demonstrated by my repeated claims that there is a way out the abuse-of-power-for-investigating-a-rival charge. If you or anyone presents me with a constitutional argument, I’ll look at it honestly and try to find a way to be unconvinced. I don’t do this in bad faith, if you convince me I’ll defend your position just like I’m defending mine right now. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > Second, there is no need for a quid pro quo to have occurred. I admit that there are other impeachable offenses, aside from quid pro quo. I mentioned campaign finance violations and witness tampering, and **Ravenman** mentioned impoundment although I haven’t been able to find the law behind that charge yet. I’ll look some more tonight or tomorrow night. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > 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_. My first post ([POST=21883945]#786[/POST]) in this thread mentioned campaign finance law, but I didn’t base my argument on that alone because I don’t think a violation of campaign finance law is a “high crime” just because it’s a violation of law. It’s not even a felony unless the “thing of value” is over a certain amount that I can’t remember off the top of my head. Instead I went with the abuse of power construction of “high crimes”. And I hesitate to call it an abuse of power if there might be good reasons to press an investigation. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > 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_. I don’t know what prompted the administration to open an investigation, so I cannot offer an actual defense. But you also don’t know what prompted the administration to open an investigation. We can speculate that the basis was insufficient to warrant an investigation, and I think that’s probably right. This is something the House of Representatives should be able to ascertain during the course of their investigation, which I support. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > 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. If official subpoenas turn up an unsatisfactory basis for investigation, the President loses any benefit of the doubt I have given him. If the President refuses to release the basis for investigating Mr. Biden/son, Senator Max S. might support conviction for obstruction of justice. I mean, sure, I could go read Fox News articles and build a case against Mr. Biden. But that takes a lot of willpower, and I’m not getting paid to defend the President. At some point I draw the line. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > 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. Admitted, but I don’t think that proves anything. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > 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. I haven’t read the documents that were just handed over to Congressional staffers (I don’t think they are publicly available). I also haven’t heard about Tom Bossert’s thing but I’ll look into that. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > 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. I know it’s hard to convey emotion through text, but I am being sincere in this thread. If you still want me to stop, I will stop. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1750 "2019-10-03T23:33:10Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Which is the entire point of Max’s arguments. Are you pretty sure of that? ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1751 "2019-10-03T23:35:24Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > 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. What is the Over / under on Trump having called the FBI already and demanded evidence of Hunter Biden’s wrong-doing as he “knows” there is corruption and the lack of charges is making him look bad? ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1752 "2019-10-03T23:40:39Z")
I’d bet a thousand dollars that Trump has never called the FBI in his life. The Ukrainian equivalent, sure. ---
**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, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1753 "2019-10-03T23:43:32Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > I’d bet a thousand dollars that Trump has never called the FBI in his life. The Ukrainian equivalent, sure. He tried calling FBI on the phone, but dialing 324 never worked. ---
**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 3, 2019, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1754 "2019-10-03T23:46:42Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Every once in a while, out of morbid curiosity, I pop over to see how Fox News is handling all this. It never ceases to amaze. The latest: “[Ex-Ukraine prosecutor said he was told to back off probe of Biden-linked firm, files show](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine-prosecutor-biden-burisma-back-off-state-department-files)”. > > What “files” are these, you may well ask. Remember that packet of conspiracy-theory drivel that the State Department inspector general handed over to Congress yesterday, the conspiracy theories and fabrications that were compiled by our old pal Rudy Giuliani, and which the inspector general regarded as evidence of a sleazy attempt to smear Trump’s Democratic opponents with falsehoods and conspiracy theories? Yeah, that one. Fox News is now quoting from those smear documents as if they contained God’s own truth, with no attempt to explain the dubious source. This particular story presents as fact what Giuliani claims in his notes the Ukrainian ex-prosecutor said to him, the one who was so corrupt and dishonest that a consortium of countries wanted him fired – and manages even to exaggerate what Rudy himself had claimed! According to Fox, Rudy’s lunatic rantings are “files” and thus indisputable sources of truth. Well, I suppose Rudy’s lunatic rantings _ **were** _ in a file folder, so I guess it’s a “file”! > > And this, folks, is where the right gets all their information, except for the parts they get from Breitbart. What’s going on at Fox News right now is actually a lot more complex and nuanced than you guys are making it out to be. It’s also utterly fascinating, and arguably key to the future of the country. Farhad Manjoo makes that case in his column in the New York Times titled “Why Lefties Should Watch Fox News”: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/opinion/impeachment-fox-news.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/opinion/impeachment-fox-news.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share) ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1755 "2019-10-03T23:52:08Z")
> [@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: The only explanation I can come up with for Trump’s statement today, is that he’s totally bought into the “impeachment is good for me! Energize the base!” argument. So he’s double-dog-daring the House to impeach him. ---
**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, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1756 "2019-10-03T23:55:23Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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? The president’s interpretation of the law (Constitution) doesn’t enter the picture. My interpretation of “high crimes” is that the president must abuse his powers. If the government has reason to suspect that an American citizen committed a crime, it is incumbent on the government to investigate and ensure that justice is served. Just because Hunter Biden is the son of the President’s rival, does not mean he is immune from the law. Given the choice between the mere appearance of impropriety on the administration’s part, and actual criminal activity by the President’s rivals, I pick the appearance of impropriety. That means I give the president the benefit of the doubt. > [@Ravenman](#): > > I have to admit, I’m struggling to interpret what you wrote, because it seems to have nothing to do with mens rea. The _actus reas_ would be the President investigating a political opponent’s family. The _mens rea_ would be the President doing so to with the intent of furthering personal politics, instead of upholding the law. If the President had a valid reason to investigate, it is very difficult for me to find the _mens rea_ I consider necessary for conviction (if I were voting). ~Max ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1757 "2019-10-04T00:02:05Z")
Dude. He literally, and proudly, confessed to exactly the thing you say warrants removal from office. If you want people to continue to engage you here, you have to take a position. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1758 "2019-10-04T00:02:06Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > What do folks think will be the eventual fate of the following (non-Trump) figures: > Resignation? > Fired by Trump? > Conviction and pardon? > Conviction and prison? > Serve out term until January 2021? > Rudy Giuliani > Bill Barr > Mike Pompeo > Mitch McConnell > Joseph Maguire > Mike Pence I speculate that any “lawyer” (fixer) for Trump has to, as a matter of course, commit multiple crimes on his behalf. As to what happens to them–what exactly triggered the FBI investigations into people like Manafort or Cohen? Can congressional investigations trigger a response from the FBI? Would they have to select another Special Prosecutor? As for pardons, I’m surprised Trump has been holding out on giving them out, but I recently read that part of this Ukraine fiasco all began as a fishing expedition on how to pardon Manafort. Maybe he’s planningto expunge all his crony’s records on his last day in office. ---
**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 4, 2019, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1759 "2019-10-04T00:03:07Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > A quid pro quo, which there was, is not the root of Trump’s Ukraine phone call B.S. The fact that he was asking Ukraine to imvestigate his opponent, an American citizen, was. > That’s impeachable. I agree that the act of investigating a political opponent (or his family) could be an abuse of power consistent with the “high crimes” in Article II Section 4. But there are two parts to a crime, the act and intent, and I am not yet convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Trump did so with intent to profit from the investigation, as opposed to upholding the law. See my recent [POST=21896685]post #1755[/POST]. I think he probably did, but probability is not the standard I would use if I were a Senator, and it’s not the standard I think most Republicans will require. ~Max ---
**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 4, 2019, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1760 "2019-10-04T00:04:05Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > The president’s interpretation of the law (Constitution) doesn’t enter the picture. My interpretation of “high crimes” is that the president must abuse his powers. If the government has reason to suspect that an American citizen committed a crime, it is incumbent on the government to investigate and ensure that justice is served. Just because Hunter Biden is the son of the President’s rival, does not mean he is immune from the law. Given the choice between the mere appearance of impropriety on the administration’s part, and actual criminal activity by the President’s rivals, I pick the appearance of impropriety. That means I give the president the benefit of the doubt. > The _actus reas_ would be the President investigating a political opponent’s family. The _mens rea_ would be the President doing so to with the intent of furthering personal politics, instead of upholding the law. > > If the President had a valid reason to investigate, it is very difficult for me to find the _mens rea_ I consider necessary for conviction (if I were voting). > > ~Max Dude, I can no longer follow a coherent line of argument from you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=87) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=89)