# 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:** 95
**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 4, 2019, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1881 "2019-10-04T19:55:51Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Unfortunately, it would appear that you were premature to highlight how unique it is for Mr. Trump to ask Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. > > Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that a pattern or lack of pattern is irrelevant. If there were and are valid reasons to investigate the Bidens, investigating them is more important to me than avoiding the mere appearance of impropriety. I don’t believe the President is above the law, and I certainly don’t believe the Bidens are above the law. > > ~Max I don’t know what you mean. If you mean the nuttiness of the last 48 hours you probably shouldn’t dig that hole. Are you saying it’s not unique now because tirnp got anxiety and needed to act out to double down? Does that reflect well on his judgement? He might do it now, to make it “non-unique” and to advertise to his base that he is …freewheeling(?), but the horse left the barn. He is massaging his knowledge that he has done something wrong in a stereotypical way. “I am of the opinion that a pattern or lack of pattern is irrelevant.” So you aren’t talking about the justice or political systems? Just your own whims and notions? ---
**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, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1882 "2019-10-04T20:00:05Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Grounds for investigating Biden have zero to do with the offenses. Trump was wrong to do it and it is impeachable even if Biden is corrupt. Responding out of order here, as I will have to take a break soon. I don’t believe the president is above the law (via Congressional impeachment or the 25th Amendment), and neither do I think a presidential candidate is above the law (via federal prosecution). Nobody is above the law. But prohibiting the President and his agents from investigating a rival presidential candidate _regardless of the reasons_ effectively puts those candidates above the law. So making the investigation of a rival candidate impeachable regardless of the reason is not okay by me. This example is a little bit more complicated because the President was caught asking _foreign governments_ to investigate. I assume that we already had an open domestic investigation underway which required foreign cooperation. _If we did not have a domestic investigation at the time of Mr. Trump’s request, I would consider his request to be impeachable_. Further, _if we did not have good reasons to open a domestic investigation when we did so, I would consider that an impeachable offense, but only if Mr. Trump was the one who ordered the opening of that investigation_. Finally, _if Mr. Trump violated a statute by withholding aid, I would probably consider that to be an impeachable offense, too_. > [@drad\_dog](#): > > Republicans are not honest brokers of any of this, so it is absurd to assign democrats the task of pretending they are and making the country work. When they do this, the reponses will be more rebupkis trolling of democracy and democratic poiticians and their supporters. But you know this already. Look man, if you want to convict the President you need Republican senators to vote for conviction. Either you convince the senators directly, or you convince their base. Either way, you have to convince Republicans of some sort. I don’t see how assuming the Republicans are unreasonable will help the cause, you know? Don’t ignore the elephants in the room. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1883 "2019-10-04T20:08:28Z")
Who woke up **Max S?** ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1884 "2019-10-04T20:09:14Z")
Step one is convincing Independents and GOP leaners. When they en masse go solidly to impeach as the necessary thing to do then you get GOP critters in swingable states and districts flipping. That may not be enough to convict in the Senate but it does set up for the repudiation of Trumpism this nation needs and for the GOP to rebuild in another image. Reasonable has little to do with the postures of most politicians. Perceived self interest is what matters ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1885 "2019-10-04T20:15:56Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I have no idea, and haven’t found the want or will to dredge through Fox News to build a speculative case against the Bidens. I’m going to sit back and say, it is incumbent on the House of Representatives to ask whether the administration had any reasonable basis to start an investigation (if they even started one). Then it’s on the administration to defend themselves. > > ~Max Again: what US laws do you think might have been broken? If you know of none, why are you calling for an investigation? What is it that you want investigated? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1886 "2019-10-04T20:26:38Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I don’t believe the president is above the law (via Congressional impeachment or the 25th Amendment), and neither do I think a presidential candidate is above the law (via federal prosecution). Nobody is above the law. But prohibiting the President and his agents from investigating a rival presidential candidate _regardless of the reasons_ effectively puts those candidates above the law. So making the investigation of a rival candidate impeachable regardless of the reason is not okay by me. Wow. Who in the hell is saying law enforcement is prohibited from investigating Biden? Why are you so easily conflating a normal investigation instigated by the proper authorities and Trump personally instigating an investigation into his political rival based on conspiracy theories? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1887 "2019-10-04T20:39:58Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > All Mueller did was focus on the strictly legal things, and look what happened. That won’t cut it. This whole thing is about public image. Most people are too stupid to parse legalities. How else do you think Trump got this far? Mueller was constrained by being a member of the DOJ plus, one might note, the limits of the evidence that he was able to gather. It is in fact possible that the evidence will lead to nowhere on this one too. And every time you hype something that you don’t know where it’s going to go, you’re accomplishing the same thing as the little boy who cried wolf. You gain a shelf life and then you’re toast once you’re past it. That’s a reason to not publicize the matter in advance nor as you go about investigating it. There were any number of things that could have been used against Trump during his first two years - like his theft of money from charity for US veterans - that all got blown over by Russia. All the eggs were put into one basket. That’s the fault of the person who arranged the eggs if that one basket falls apart, not the fault of the basket. ---
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1888 "2019-10-04T20:41:22Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > But in a new tactic, the White House plans to argue that U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi must have the full House vote to formally approve an impeachment inquiry, a source familiar with the effort said. And then they’ll claim the Democrats are biased because voting to approve an impeachment inquiry shows they’ve already decided to impeach. ---
**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 4, 2019, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1889 "2019-10-04T20:46:11Z")
NBC News: [CIA’s top lawyer made criminal referral on whistleblower’s complaint about Trump conduct](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/cia-s-top-lawyer-made-criminal-referral-whistleblower-s-complaint-n1062481) > [@](#): > > Weeks before the whistleblower’s complaint became public, the CIA’s top lawyer made what she considered a criminal referral to the Justice Department about the whistleblower’s allegations that President Donald Trump abused his office in pressuring the Ukrainian president, U.S. officials familiar with the matter tell NBC News. > > The move by the CIA’s general counsel, Trump appointee Courtney Simmons Elwood, meant she and other senior officials had concluded a potential crime had been committed, raising more questions about why the Justice Department later closed the case without conducting an investigation. ---
**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 4, 2019, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1890 "2019-10-04T20:54:54Z")
… but who was committing crimes…? ---
**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 4, 2019, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1891 "2019-10-04T20:59:29Z")
Yeah, I had trouble figuring out that headline, even after I read some of the article. It seems the initial whistle-blowing event triggered a potential-crime-was-committed initial event by the CIA. Or something. Criminal TBD, but now we know it was the President. ---
**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 4, 2019, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1892 "2019-10-04T21:06:31Z")
> [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > NBC News: [CIA’s top lawyer made criminal referral on whistleblower’s complaint about Trump conduct](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/cia-s-top-lawyer-made-criminal-referral-whistleblower-s-complaint-n1062481) _sarcasm_ Isn’t it _weird_ that the response from the lawyer wasn’t “oh boy this means we had better investigate Biden!” I mean, isn’t it just _weird_ that the lawyer didn’t call for Ukraine to conduct the investigation? _sarcasm over_ Because that seems to be the natural reaction from some posts in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1893 "2019-10-04T21:17:17Z")
Is it just me or does Senator Ron Johnson (WI) seem to be distancing himself somewhat from Trump? > **[Ron Johnson says Trump denied quid pro quo in August phone call](https://madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/ron-johnson-says-trump-denied-quid-pro-quo-in-august/article_6f857423-9f65-5704-beb4-3e8e475f73b0.html)** > > Johnson reportedly learned from U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, that aid to Ukraine was tied to Trump's request to have the Eastern European nation undertake investigations related > [@](#): > > Johnson told the paper [I think they’re referring to the Wall Street Journal] that Sondland informed him of the arrangement in which Ukraine would appoint a prosecutor general to “get to the bottom of what happened in 2016 – if President Trump has the confidence, then he’ll release the military spending.” > > “At that suggestion, I winced,” Mr. Johnson told the paper. “My reaction was: Oh, God. I don’t want to see those two things combined.” And regarding military aid to Ukraine: > [@](#): > > “I tried to convince (Trump) to give me the authority to tell President Zelensky that we were going to provide that,” Johnson said. “Now, I didn’t succeed.” ---
**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 4, 2019, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1894 "2019-10-04T21:22:43Z")
Sounds to me like the reaction he might have had if is loony grandpa farted loudly at the Thanksgiving dinner table. Negative, yes, but nothing serious. “Oh, I wince every time he does that.” ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1895 "2019-10-04T21:26:58Z")
But contemporaneous corroboration of Sondland understanding that Trump was demanding such in a quid pro quo. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1896 "2019-10-04T21:30:05Z")
Apologies if this was already linked but here’s what was Kurt Volker’s opening statement during his hearing: > **[READ: Volker’s opening statement to Congress in Ukraine investigation](https://thehill.com/homenews/house/464425-read-volkers-opening-statement-to-congress-in-ukraine-investigation/)** > > President Trump’s former envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, said he was unaware of efforts by the president or his officials to press Ukraine to investigate allegations against former V… Sounds to me like Giuliani was working on CloudStrike or something else not Biden. In many ways, I find that more disturbing than the Biden thing. I genuinely do hope that Schiff get serious and investigate this properly. ---
**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, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1897 "2019-10-04T21:44:06Z")
> [@SmellMyWort](#): > > Is it just me or does Senator Ron Johnson (WI) seem to be distancing himself somewhat from Trump? > [Ron Johnson says Trump denied quid pro quo in August phone call](https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/ron-johnson-says-trump-denied-quid-pro-quo-in-august/article_6f857423-9f65-5704-beb4-3e8e475f73b0.html) > > And regarding military aid to Ukraine: Seems like one of the jurors needs to testify to the House as to his firsthand conversations with the President about the matter. ---
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1898 "2019-10-04T21:46:48Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > 12 hours ago, [NPR published this story](https://www.npr.org/2019/09/24/763575677/impeachment-has-never-been-very-popular-but-that-hasnt-stopped-congress-before): > > I’d recommend you read it. What a difference a little over a week makes: [https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/politics/trump-impeachment-polling/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/politics/trump-impeachment-polling/index.html) > [@](#): > > Americans are more eager to impeach Trump now than they were at similar points in the impeachment sagas of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon. ---
**Author:** ![mjmlabs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mjmlabs/32/69_2.png) [@mjmlabs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mjmlabs)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1899 "2019-10-04T22:32:50Z")
To the question of what, exactly, constitutes an impeachable offense (other than Treason or Bribery, and I’d argue we’ve had evidence of one-and-three-quarters of those two already), here are a few relevant paragraphs from [that George Conway opinion piece I keep flogging](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/george-conway-trump-unfit-office/599128/) (and I swear, I’m neither Conway nor an _Atlantic_ shareholder): > [@](#): > > The Framers of the Constitution expected the presidency to be occupied by special individuals, selfless people of the highest character and ability. They intended the Electoral College to be a truly deliberative body, not the largely ceremonial institution it has become today. Because the Electoral College, unlike Congress and the state legislatures, wouldn’t be a permanent body, and because it involved diffuse selections made in the various states, they hoped it would help avoid “cabal, intrigue and corruption,” as Alexander Hamilton put it in “Federalist No. 68,” and deter interference from “these most deadly adversaries of republican government,” especially “from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.” > > Though the Constitution’s drafters could hardly have foreseen how the system would evolve, they certainly knew the kind of person they wanted it to produce. “The process of election affords a moral certainty,” Hamilton wrote, “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity,” might suffice for someone to be elected to the governorship of a state, but not the presidency. Election would “require other talents, and a different kind of merit,” to gain “the esteem and confidence of the whole Union,” or enough of it to win the presidency. As a result, there would be “a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.” This was the Framers’ goal in designing the system that would make “the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided.” > > Hamilton’s use of the word _trust_ in _The Federalist Papers_ to describe the presidency was no accident. The Framers intended that the president “be like a fiduciary, who must pursue the public interest in good faith republican fashion rather than pursuing his self-interest, and who must diligently and steadily execute Congress’s commands,” as a recent _Harvard Law Review_ article puts it. The concept is akin to the law of private fiduciaries, which governs trustees of trusts and directors and officers of corporations, an area that has been central to my legal practice as a corporate litigator. “Indeed,” as the _Harvard Law Review_ article explains, “one might argue that what presents to us as private fiduciary law today had some of its genesis in the law of public officeholding.” The overarching principle is that a fiduciary—say, the CEO of a corporation—when acting on behalf of a corporation, has to act in the corporation’s best interests. Likewise, a trustee of a trust must use the assets for the benefit of the beneficiary, and not himself (a fundamental rule, incidentally, that Trump apparently couldn’t adhere to with his own charitable foundation). > > In providing for a national chief executive, the Framers incorporated the very similar law of public officeholding into his duties in two places in the Constitution—in Article II, Section 3 (the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”), and in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8, which requires the president to “solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States.” That language—particularly the words _faithfully execute_—was in 1787 “very commonly associated with the performance of public and private offices,” the _Harvard Law Review_ article points out, and “anyone experienced in law or government” at that time would have recognized what it meant, “because it was so basic to … the law of executive officeholding.” In a nutshell, while carrying out his official duties, a president has to put the country, not himself, first; he must faithfully follow and enforce the law; and he must act with the utmost care in doing all that. Let’s say, _arguendo_, that Hunter Biden was being paid in cash, cocaine and teenaged prostitutes to murder political opponents and business rivals of his oligarch boss, and then he ate their bodies to hide the evidence; doesn’t matter, not relevant to the question of whether Trump’s actions rise to the level of impeachment. (Athough I’ll note, for the record, that there is no evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever by either Biden, no evidence that Hunter Biden was ever under investigation for any wrongdoing, and, contrary to Trump’s assertion, much evidence that the prosecutor was not “a very good” prosecutor and not “treated very badly.”) The merits of a Biden investigation are irrelevant to this core point: Trump has failed in his fiduciary responsibility to the American people to put the country’s interests above his own. This is not at all surprising; one would be hard-pressed to find an instance in Donald J. Trump’s life when he put any interests above his own. His betrayal of the trust placed in him, his failure to faithfully execute his oath, is cause for impeachment; so say I. Also, he’s a lying sack of protoplasm. But that’s not impeachable unless under oath, and no lawyer will ever let him testify under oath if they can help it. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/1900 "2019-10-04T22:41:51Z")
> [@mjmlabs](#): > > … Trump has failed in his fiduciary responsibility to the American people to put the country’s interests above his own. … This one line deserve highlighting. It is not all of it but it alone is sufficient. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=94) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=96)