# The Trump Impeachment Trial
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524
**Category:** Politics & Elections
**Created:** [January 16, 2020, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524 "2020-01-16T20:12:52Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 38
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [January 31, 2020, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/741 "2020-01-31T23:45:16Z")
> [@Max\_S](#):
>
> I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 because I reviewed “years of Trump’s words and actions to judge his character and motivations.” I still wouldn’t chance my life/health/house/job/pretty much anything important to me on Trump’s intent being corrupt, not without hesitation, and personally that is the standard I use for beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> ETA: ( **Kent Clark** ’s hypothetical actually was in a vacuum)
>
> ~Max
Then we live in different universes, since it seems as clear as it possibly can without psychic abilities to me that his intent was improper.
---
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [January 31, 2020, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/742 "2020-01-31T23:53:27Z")
> [@JohnT](#):
>
> Mitch McConnell used the Senate to steal power away from the Presidency during the Obama years. When presented with a politician who openly stole power from the People, McConnell decided he could use this man to steal power from the House.
>
> The Senate and Donald Trump are now openly working to remove our voice from government. That’s the crux of the matter here.
McConnell is too confident of his ability to manage Trump.
He’s obviously never encountered an addict. You can manage them for a time but minus any desire on the part of the addict to reform (and even then) you’re simply filling time until everything goes off the rails.
Being told that he can’t be impeached for rejecting oversight requests is going to make the addict part of Trump’s brain that wants to live without limits light up, and he’s going to abuse the hell out of it.
I almost hope that if Trump wins the election this year, that the Republicans maintain the Senate, just so they’ll have to lead the Impeachment effort.
---
### Author:  [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2020, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/743 "2020-02-01T00:08:50Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#):
>
> It was indeed a blatant lie: the basis for her misleading implication was the false claim that Shokin had been investigating Burisma at the time he was fired. (“Slow walking” is a nice try at defending her lie, but the facts do not support it.)
>
> A misleading implication that’s based on a false claim is about as blatant a lie as it’s possible to make.
Every article I can find says the investigation into Burisma was “dormant” or “slow walked” or “not being pursued”, or similar language. I find plenty of sources saying Shokin didn’t want to investigate Burisma because he was like, best friends with the founder or something. Standard corruption in Ukraine. But officially, there was still an ongoing investigation. The misleading part of what Pam Bondi said (according to you) is that she gave the impression that Shokin was actively pursuing an investigation into Bursima, when he was in fact sitting on the investigation. It is _misleading_, and not a _lie_, because she did not explicitly say Shokin was actively pursuing an investigation. That is the obvious implication, but it is not what she actually said (according to you).
> [@Sherrerd](#):
>
> Stopping the pile-on of bad faith arguments right there: the Trump defense position that the “initial phase…was not authorized by the House (and therefore the President didn’t need to comply with subpoenas)” is utterly unsupported by the Constitution itself, by subsequent judicial rulings, or by the expressed views of actual Constitutional scholars.
We clearly disagree. Worth a dedicated thread I think. I had my last one moved to the wrong forum so I’ll leave it to someone else to make a thread.
~Max
---
### Author:  [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2020, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/744 "2020-02-01T00:08:53Z")
Final conviction/acquittal vote is scheduled for next Wednesday.
---
### Author:  [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2020, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/745 "2020-02-01T00:13:42Z")
At least he won’t be acquitted when he gives his SotU address, or in time to gloat in his super secret Super Bowl ad.
---
### Author:  [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2020, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/746 "2020-02-01T00:17:55Z")
> [@Velocity](#):
>
> Final conviction/acquittal vote is scheduled for next Wednesday.
The Senate will vote (to acquit) just in time to allow Trump to gloat in his State of the Union address.
Nice timing.
ETA: didn’t see Happy’s post. But I read there will be time for it to happen.
---
### Author:  [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2020, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/747 "2020-02-01T00:18:04Z")
> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> Im not going to argue BRD, we’ve done that. But assuming there’s a mixture of legitimate and corrupt intent - would you think that any element of legitimate intent would mitigate the corrupt intent, if proven? Like, let’s say the President is on tape saying, “I did this 99% for corrupt purposes, but 1% because it’s the right thing to do.” Would you judge that to be a non-crime?
It’s not legitimate _intent_ that cancels out corrupt intent. Unlike what I’ve heard of the Derschwitz argument, I could not care less what the accused thinks is or is not legitimate use of his own power. He can think whatever he wants to think. He can think helping his re-election is good for national security. If _I_ think the act was actually a legitimate use of power, then _that_ is what overrides corrupt intent.
So I can’t answer your question because you haven’t given me enough information to determine if the act was legitimate or not.
> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> A few years ago, the House held Eric Holder in contempt because he would not turn over documents (among other things). The resolution authorized the House to sue for the documents.
>
> Just based on those facts, would you judge it illegitimate for the House to seek criminal charges against Holder because they had not tried to sue, and it was merely a committee subpoena that Holder was not complying with?
I’m not totally familiar with that episode, but I would think suing for documents is equivalent to enforcing contempt under criminal law is equivalent to seeking criminal charges. So really it would come down to the courts deciding whether the committee had actually followed the contempt law when they decided to hold Holder in contempt.
~Max
---
### Author:  [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2020, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/748 "2020-02-01T00:22:19Z")
> [@Boycott](#):
>
> I consider myself a political junkie and on these online boards reading and dissecting what is happening. It’s the opposite to my real life interactions at work or some people I’m friendly with though because even though many don’t like Trump at all, they are pretty switched off politically. There was quite a lot of happy reactions when the House voted to impeach Trump and they saw it all on the news but for the impeachment trial itself only a few are following it while the majority opinion seems to be totally irreverent and bored.
We are a self-selected sample here, that might explain the duality you see.
~Max
---
### Author:  [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2020, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/749 "2020-02-01T00:23:23Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#):
>
> The chain of command heirarchy was designed to deal with this. Too few, and too many, are both problems. The chain means you don’t have to guess about this, for yourself or anyone else in the org. Beforehand going in, during the op, and then after it makes things much clearer for others in the organization. That’s why it’s mandatory.
>
> Trying to avoid detection by your own people, for a potus, this is circumstantial evidence pointing towards guilt. You can’t overcome this via this line.
Well, I disagree that it’s mandatory, is all.
~Max
---
### Author:  [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2020, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/750 "2020-02-01T00:28:10Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#):
>
> The Senate will vote (to acquit) just in time to allow Trump to gloat in his State of the Union address.
> Nice timing.
SOTU is Tuesday. The Senate vote is the following day.
---
### Author:  [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2020, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/751 "2020-02-01T00:35:40Z")
> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> But Rudy wasn’t acting in any official capacity, so the rest of your post is moot. He wasn’t appointed to any position or office, he was not a special envoy. We know this because he wrote it down, quite emphatically.
>
> Cite:
>
> [New Rudy Giuliani letter destroys Trump defense in Ukraine controversy](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/new-rudy-giuliani-letter-destroys-trump-defense-ukraine-impeachment-2020-1)
It’s not a fact. I wouldn’t put Rudy Giuliani above lying (to the President or to Ukraine) or even misinterpreting directions or misunderstanding his role and status. The letter may not even be about investigations into Biden/Burisma/DNC/Crowdstrike, _that_ part is not a fact. Perhaps Mr. Trump also had Mr. Giuliani talking about a favorite golf course or something.
As I said before, I would need this to be established beyond a reasonable doubt, not just built on circumstantial evidence.
~Max
---
### Author:  [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2020, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/752 "2020-02-01T00:57:37Z")
> [@Max\_S](#):
>
> Well, I disagree that it’s mandatory, is all.
>
> ~Max
It’s not a magic law. it’s cited as evidence that dt was avoiding normal channels. Common sense and past practice in the US demand investigation of this fact. It may not be prosecution. But the potus needs very good excuses for doing it.
---
### Author:  [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2020, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/753 "2020-02-01T01:01:47Z")
Can anyone cite a legal theory having to do wtih dual motives in a crime, both criminal, and ( …whatever it may be,) being legally linked and dependent on each other for the purpose of trial?
---
### Author:  [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2020, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/754 "2020-02-01T01:06:06Z")
> [@Max\_S](#):
>
> As I said before, I would need this to be established beyond a reasonable doubt, not just built on circumstantial evidence.
>
> ~Max
Two things:
1. The standard is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard is used for the potential deprivation of liberty. What we are concerned with here is simply a removal from a job for misconduct.
2. Circumstantial evidence does not mean unreliable evidence. Completely different things. By saying you could not convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence, you could never, ever convict anyone without a direct confession of intent. Until a mind reading machine is created, every single determination of intent has to be based on circumstantial evidence. And it’s done every day, in every courtroom in the US. Maybe not so much in a rigged trial where the jurors specifically vote not to hear actual evidence. But for the rest of the world …
---
### Author:  [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2020, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/755 "2020-02-01T01:10:03Z")
> [@Hamlet](#):
>
> Two things:
>
> 1. The standard is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard is used for the potential deprivation of liberty. What we are concerned with here is simply a removal from a job for misconduct.
>
> 2. Circumstantial evidence does not mean unreliable evidence. Completely different things. By saying you could not convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence, you could never, ever convict anyone without a direct confession of intent. Until a mind reading machine is created, every single determination of intent has to be based on circumstantial evidence. And it’s done every day, in every courtroom in the US. Maybe not so much in a rigged trial where the jurors specifically vote not to hear actual evidence. But for the rest of the world …
Maybe Max can speak for himself but it seems to me that he is ignoring circumstantial evidence as not relevant or valid enough.
To me CE is useful information and it hasn’t been ambiguous. But if it’s not accepted then the same arguments are going to be running here ad infinitum.
---
### Author:  [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2020, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/756 "2020-02-01T01:33:25Z")
> [@steronz](#):
>
> Rudy G _wasn’t_ appointed special envoy.
This is not yet established to my satisfaction.
> [@steronz](#):
>
> It’s also not typically a special envoy’s job to investigate possible criminal acts by US citizens, nor to weed out corruption in foreign governments.
Whether something is _typically_ a special envoy’s job is irrelevant. There are situations where I think it would be appropriate for a special envoy to investigate or push for an investigation of possible criminal acts by a U.S. citizen, and there are situations where I think it would be appropriate for a special envoy to encourage a foreign government to weed out corruption. I would need to be convinced that Rudy Giuliani actually did something that implicates the President in a high crime or misdemeanor.
> [@steronz](#):
>
> Herein lies the problem – if Rudy Giuliani opens your suitcase at the airport when you’re not looking and finds a brick of weed, is the DA going to throw out the evidence because it was a 4th amendment violation? Or will the DA claim that Rudy G was acting as a private citizen and your beef is directly with him? And what are you going to sue him for, breaking and entering a suitcase? Will the head of the FBI discipline Rudy G for conducting an unlawful search, like they would if a federal agent had done the same thing? Who knows! Trump can claim he’s acting in an official capacity when it suits him, and claim to barely know him when that also suits him.
If he was acting under the color of authority, he would need some semblance of law enforcement power and either a warrant of probable cause or a showing of exigent circumstances. Even without any of that, you aren’t going to get the evidence thrown out of court if the bag was going to be searched anyways, when you go through TSA.
If he claims to have been walking by and happened to notice bricks of weed sticking out, then it’s on you to show Mr. Giuliani acted differently because of his status as special envoy in a way that deprives you of your rights.
If he claims to have been a private citizen, again, you aren’t going to have the evidence thrown out because he opened your bag instead of calling airport police.
When it comes to suing people for violating your Fourth Amendment rights, you may not be aware of it but those lawsuits are already directed against individuals in their personal capacity. If an FBI agent breaks into my home without a warrant, I sue that FBI officer in their personal capacity, because the United States itself is entitled to sovereign immunity. If the “officer” is then disowned by the FBI (this would be pretrial), not only can you beg the DA to prosecute for impersonating an officer, you can also adjust your own civil suit for misrepresentation or, if battling over rules of evidence, declare the evidence fruit of a poisonous tree.
> [@steronz](#):
>
> Yes but this particular exchange we’re having isn’t really about firing the CEO, it’s really about whether or not the CEO is authorized to go outside the organizations set up for him by the company. Congress tells the president he can have a department of state, a budget to run it, and rules for it to operate under. The president is an executive overseeing this department’s operation. Yes he is a co-equal branch, and that gives him a lot of latitude into how to run the department, but it doesn’t give him the authority to act like a king and decide to do his state department business outside of the confines that congress has given him.
Congress cannot and did not confine the President’s powers in the field of foreign relations, so I don’t see why the President can’t conduct foreign policy outside of the state department, at least not for those reasons.
~Max
---
### Author:  [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2020, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/757 "2020-02-01T01:35:49Z")
> [@BeepKillBeep](#):
>
> Dershowitz’s argument that a politician using the power of their office to support their reelection efforts is not impeachable is incredibly dangerous to the democratic ideals of the USA. It should outrage any American that loves their country […] When democracy itself becomes politically partisan, then it dies. Anybody thinking of voting Republican needs to seriously consider how much value they place in a democracy.
Well, I agree with the parts I quoted.
~Max
---
### Author:  [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2020, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/758 "2020-02-01T01:48:25Z")
> [@Max\_S](#):
>
> It’s not a fact. I wouldn’t put Rudy Giuliani above lying (to the President or to Ukraine) or even misinterpreting directions or misunderstanding his role and status. The letter may not even be about investigations into Biden/Burisma/DNC/Crowdstrike, _that_ part is not a fact. Perhaps Mr. Trump also had Mr. Giuliani talking about a favorite golf course or something.
>
> As I said before, I would need this to be established beyond a reasonable doubt, not just built on circumstantial evidence.
I disagree with the BRD theory you keep going back to, but wild speculation in opposition to evidence is not the basis for a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is not imaginary doubt. There’s nothing in evidence to suggest that he was talking about a golf course, while there is testimony that on many occasions places Rudy at the center of efforts to start an investigation into Burisma.
You have established a high threshold for evidence, but I submit you are applying it incorrectly. You talk about reasonable doubt, but in practice, you seem to be applying a standard of “beyond all doubt.”
> [@Max\_S](#):
>
> This is not yet established to my satisfaction.
>
> Whether something is _typically_ a special envoy’s job is irrelevant. There are situations where I think it would be appropriate for a special envoy to investigate or push for an investigation of possible criminal acts by a U.S. citizen, and there are situations where I think it would be appropriate for a special envoy to encourage a foreign government to weed out corruption. I would need to be convinced that Rudy Giuliani actually did something that implicates the President in a high crime or misdemeanor.
>
> If he was acting under the color of authority, he would need some semblance of law enforcement power and either a warrant of probable cause or a showing of exigent circumstances. Even without any of that, you aren’t going to get the evidence thrown out of court if the bag was going to be searched anyways, when you go through TSA.
>
> If he claims to have been walking by and happened to notice bricks of weed sticking out, then it’s on you to show Mr. Giuliani acted differently because of his status as special envoy in a way that deprives you of your rights.
>
> If he claims to have been a private citizen, again, you aren’t going to have the evidence thrown out because he opened your bag instead of calling airport police.
>
> When it comes to suing people for violating your Fourth Amendment rights, you may not be aware of it but those lawsuits are already directed against individuals in their personal capacity. If an FBI agent breaks into my home without a warrant, I sue that FBI officer in their personal capacity, because the United States itself is entitled to sovereign immunity. If the “officer” is then disowned by the FBI (this would be pretrial), not only can you beg the DA to prosecute for impersonating an officer, you can also adjust your own civil suit for misrepresentation or, if battling over rules of evidence, declare the evidence fruit of a poisonous tree.
>
> Congress cannot and did not confine the President’s powers in the field of foreign relations, so I don’t see why the President can’t conduct foreign policy outside of the state department, at least not for those reasons.
>
> ~Max
---
### Author:  [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2020, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/759 "2020-02-01T01:58:46Z")
> [@Moriarty](#):
>
> Meaning, if the executive takes umbrage at efforts by the legislative to intervene in executive actions, it is incumbent on the executive to go to the judicial branch for relief. Which is to say, in practical terms, that Trump was obligated to cooperate _unless and until the courts said he didn’t have to._
>
> Here, the executive has adopted the inverse approach: I don’t have to, and the legislature needs the judiciary to join them before I’d even consider it.
>
> That turns the idea of ‘checks and balances’ on its head, because it doesn’t presuoppose that each branch is legitimately entitled to check the other.
No, I disagree. It’s incumbent on the legislative branch to force the executive branch to cooperate, either through their impeachment power or through their legislative power plus judicial interpretation.
I don’t accept this doctrine of each branch having an obligation to expose itself and its inner working to every other branch. That is antithetical to the theory behind executive privilege, and in my belief it is antithetical to effective deliberation of sensitive matters. You are right, I _don’t_ suppose that each branch is entitled to check the other. There are limits on each check.
> [@Moriarty](#):
>
> And, more importantly, it creates a complete immunity for a president for the last year or so of his or her presidency, since it means that a president can simply obstruct any investigation and trust that any lawsuits can be dragged out beyond the end of the term.
I think this is just a flaw in the Constitution, and I could support an amendment allowing retroactive impeachments to remove immunity and expose the ex-president/official to liability. I would have to think about how far back you can go, but I could support such an amendment.
> [@Moriarty](#):
>
> In the real world, if a person is served with a subpoena, they don’t just get to say, “No. File a lawsuit if you want me to comply”. Instead, they have to run to court to seek an injunction or other emergency relief, because the law presumes that they are obligated to comply. As we see with this impeachment, allowing the subject of the investigation to dictate the terms of cooperation just creates roadblocks that delay justice, since no reasonable person with exculpatory evidence tries to hide it.
In the real world, subpoenas are issued by the court so naturally it makes no sense to say “get a court order and I’ll comply”. I am of the opinion that Congressional subpoenas do not carry the same force as a court’s subpoena. SCOTUS says Congress has an inherent power to enforce it’s own subpoenas, but it chooses not to use that power. Perhaps wisely, since I doubt the inherent power extends beyond the Capitol building. Instead they make contempt of court a criminal act, but by doing so they are effectively trusting the courts to issue court orders which interpret the law as requiring production of documents. Those court orders are then executed and enforced by… the executive branch.
Congress’s other check is the laws themselves. Congress may by law force the President to produce documents as part of their oversight powers. But this only extends to areas where Congress has a legitimate interest in the documents for legislative purposes, and again, the law is interpreted by… the courts. And enforced by the executive branch.
Congress’s final check is impeachment. I will grant that they have the power to impeach and convict an officer that obstructs them contrary to the Constitution, but first you have to convince me that obstruction took place and violated the Constitution.
~Max
---
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2020, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/760 "2020-02-01T04:02:07Z")
> [@Max\_S](#):
>
> I don’t accept this doctrine of each branch having an obligation to expose itself and its inner working to every other branch. That is antithetical to the theory behind executive privilege, and in my belief it is antithetical to effective deliberation of sensitive matters. You are right, I _don’t_ suppose that each branch is entitled to check the other. There are limits on each check.
The Reagan standard (which everyone was fine with and which has been the standard for the last 37 years):
> **[1982 Reagan Memo re procedures governing congressional requests for information](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3864882-1982-Reagan-Memo-re-procedures-governing.html)**
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524.md?page=37)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524.md?page=39)