# 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:** 42
### Author:  [@str8cashhomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/str8cashhomie)
#### Post date: [February 2, 2020, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/821 "2020-02-02T19:13:27Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> Put your right foot in, take your left foot out, change people’s minds, that’s what it’s all about. And that _is_ possible, it _does_ happen. Never has much as we want, never as soon, but it does.
>
> Otherwise, Plan B is give up and go dig a hole. Dunno about you, but I’m just too damn stubborn.
No, because people actually do care already about extorting foreign officials for personal gain and Trump made it ridiculously easy to make that case. The Democrats can’t decide what the Republican-controlled Senate does. All they can do is make it as politically painful as possible for any Republican who doesn’t vote to convict Trump, which has the outside chance of convincing enough Republicans to convict, or more likely just hurts Trump and the Republicans with their own refusal to take this seriously. This works better if you hammer the focus home on the actual abuse and refuse to get bogged down in minutia.
And this is a particular case where we don’t have time to educate the American public on why all the complicated stuff is important, because all of this is going to come home to roost in the 2020 election.
---
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [February 2, 2020, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/822 "2020-02-02T19:59:26Z")
> [@str8cashhomie](#):
>
> This would have been the worst idea. I absolutely think that obstructing investigations into his conduct should be taken seriously, but we already know that most Americans don’t care. Back before the Mueller investigation, he admitted on national TV to obstructing the FBI investigation into his crimes related to the 2016 election. There’s no reason to emphasize something that the people who ultimately decide the verdict don’t care about.
The Senate cares a lot more about maintaining the power of the Senate than they do about whether their guy in the White House cheats or honestly re-attains his seat.
There’s also the issue that the House gave them a few months to prepare defenses for the Ukraine thing, and get the people inoculated to it.
A new illness is more easy to spread than the one we’ve all become resistant to.
---
### Author:  [@str8cashhomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/str8cashhomie)
#### Post date: [February 2, 2020, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/823 "2020-02-02T21:10:32Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> The Senate cares a lot more about maintaining the power of the Senate than they do about whether their guy in the White House cheats or honestly re-attains his seat.
I’m not sure exactly what you’re getting at here, but I’m guessing the idea is to emphasize to the GOP that if you don’t use impeachment as a consequence for defying congressional subpoenas, you’re ceding congressional power, including senate power, to the executive branch. I guess it’s a potential argument, but the GOP had telegraphed so strongly that they weren’t going to convict, and they’ve already been quite happy to give up power to Trump in cases like the state of emergency. This was always going to come down to the voting public, and the voting public unfortunately doesn’t care about obstruction.
> [@](#):
>
> There’s also the issue that the House gave them a few months to prepare defenses for the Ukraine thing, and get the people inoculated to it.
>
> A new illness is more easy to spread than the one we’ve all become resistant to.
This I do agree with, which is why I think generally the fact that the house moved close to as quickly as IMO you could reasonably expect is a good thing. They probably could have tightened somethings up as far as timing, and Pelosi didn’t need to hang on to the articles, so there’s definitely room to second guess on those points.
---
### Author:  [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)
#### Post date: [February 2, 2020, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/824 "2020-02-02T21:34:46Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> The Senate cares a lot more about maintaining the power of the Senate than they do about whether their guy in the White House cheats or honestly re-attains his seat.
Oh, I totally disagree. Republicans of the Senate have one priority, getting re-elected in the party of Trump is pretty much the only priority. Republicans have had ample opportunities to stand of up their institution and chosen to defer to the President on every occasion.
---
### Author:  [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)
#### Post date: [February 2, 2020, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/825 "2020-02-02T23:09:48Z")
Former US prosecutor Glenn Kirschner is urging Adam Schiff to ask Chief Justice Roberts to ask for a mistrial:
> [@](#):
>
> … Such a move is neither considered in the Senate rules adopted for the trial nor has ever been attempted before at either of the two other impeachment trials in U.S. history.
> However, the revelation that White House Counsel Pat Cipollone was in the room when Trump personally ordered John Bolton to push Ukraine into launching investigations into Democrats — as the then-National Security Advisor claims in his upcoming book — implicates a principal member of the president’s defense team as a material witness in the accusations against Trump.
>
> The fact that Cipollone was aware of and withheld incriminating evidence that helped prove the case against the president — as the emails from officials in the Office of Management and Budget that the Department of Justice disclosed only hours after the Senate voted against hearing further evidence in the trial proved — also provides further fodder for a motion to dismiss the trial as irreparably tainted.
>
> The direct involvement of one of the jurors in the proceedings, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), in the Ukraine extortion scheme as alleged by the lawyer for Lev Parnas — one of the primary figures involved in the execution of the Ukraine pressure plot, along with his colleague, Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani — also helps justify any potential Democratic petition to the Chief Justice to declare the trial invalid …
> **[Schiff could move for mistrial in Senate impeachment after Trump legal team's...](https://occupydemocrats.com/2020/02/02/schiff-could-move-for-mistrial-in-senate-impeachment-after-trump-legal-teams-conflicts-of-interest/)**
>
> NBC Legal Analyst Glenn Kirschner urges the House Impeachment Manager to petition Chief Justice Roberts to declare a mistrial due to White House Counsel Pat Cipollone's "grossly unethical conduct."
This idea appears to be new, today. I’ve been looking for opinions and views from experts, but so far they don’t seem to be posted online.
I would predict that Roberts would not entertain the idea for a moment—though he should. Cipollone and Graham should not have participated in the trial. But Roberts is a rock-ribbed Republican, so I doubt that he’ll bite.
However, it wouldn’t cost the Democrats anything to put these issues (particularly the Cipollone and Graham scandals) in the spotlight they so richly deserve.
eta: Ravenman, thanks for your answer on the “voting present” issue.
---
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2020, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/826 "2020-02-03T00:38:58Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#):
>
> Former US prosecutor Glenn Kirschner is urging Adam Schiff to ask Chief Justice Roberts to ask for a mistrial:
>
> [Schiff could move for mistrial in Senate impeachment after Trump legal team's conflicts of interest](https://occupydemocrats.com/2020/02/02/schiff-could-move-for-mistrial-in-senate-impeachment-after-trump-legal-teams-conflicts-of-interest/)
>
> This idea appears to be new, today. I’ve been looking for opinions and views from experts, but so far they don’t seem to be posted online.
>
> I would predict that Roberts would not entertain the idea for a moment—though he should. Cipollone and Graham should not have participated in the trial. But Roberts is a rock-ribbed Republican, so I doubt that he’ll bite.
>
> However, it wouldn’t cost the Democrats anything to put these issues (particularly the Cipollone and Graham scandals) in the spotlight they so richly deserve.
> eta: Ravenman, thanks for your answer on the “voting present” issue.
By all sanity, it should be done and Roberts should agree.
In reality, the only reason to do it is similar to if someone much larger than you makes you just so so angry that all you can do is look at them and shriek in helpless anger. And the only reason to do that is simply because you can’t restrain yourself.
---
### Author:  [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2020, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/827 "2020-02-03T11:22:51Z")
no need to redo the trial when we all know the result will be the same. They could have 1000 witnesses and Trump is not going anywhere except to Mar A Lago
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2020, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/828 "2020-02-03T11:48:26Z")
> [@](#):
>
> …Cipollone and Graham should not have participated in the trial…
Certainly looks like an grievous offense, and there are clear procedures for this.
!) Refer the question to the Atty Gen., get a ruling on whether it falls under the guidelines for absolute unitary executive discretionary immunity.
2)Go to court, and ask for expedited consideration. You may reasonably expect a definitive answer in, let’s see, November = eleven, February = two…nine months.
Or, (3), write it out, scrawl “53 to 47” in it with a Sharpie, wad it up and shove it up your Nixon.
---
### Author:  [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2020, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/829 "2020-02-03T12:52:45Z")
If nothing else, it seems that Cipollone should be disbarred. It will just be more wreckage from the Trump bus. Why does anybody want to work for him again?
---
### Author:  [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2020, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/830 "2020-02-03T13:55:13Z")
Well, I watched Dershowitz on Chris Wallace after posting about him above. Finally, at long last, he said essentially that in the trial he was acting as Trump’s defense attorney, and not just as a defender of the Constitution. And like any smooth lawyer, you would never know he ever claimed anything else. While still thinking his opinion is nonsense (though, IANAL) at least in that sense he can still claim some self-respect. I am assuming he knows his opinion is nonsense, but as a defense laywer, he had to come up with something!
---
### Author:  [@Guest-starring\_Id](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guest-starring_Id)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2020, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/831 "2020-02-03T14:03:33Z")
Debating whether this should have been posted in Stupid Republican Idea of the Day thread…
[Iowa Senator Joni Ernst warned Sunday that Republicans could immediately push to impeach Joe Biden over his work in Ukraine as vice president if he win the White House.](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-02/ernst-warns-of-gop-push-to-impeach-biden-over-ukraine-if-he-wins)
> [@](#):
>
> “I think this door of impeachable whatever…"
Indeed, a most erudite way to undertake this masterstroke of gotcha.
---
### Author:  [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2020, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/832 "2020-02-03T14:38:53Z")
Again, this whole idea that this impeachment sets a dangerous precedent is really nothing more than Trump’s defenders grasping at straws.
The fact is that the Clinton impeachment was unpopular. The fact is that the Trump impeachment is somewhat popular. I think Republicans didn’t try to impeach Obama because they knew it would backfire, not out of adherence to any principle or precedent.
If Joni Ernst (by the way, a politician who I can’t associate with doing anything substantive in particular in DC), wants to impeach Biden, that’s no skin off my nose. Go for it. Let’s see how the voters feel about your agenda next time we go to the polls.
---
### Author:  [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2020, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/833 "2020-02-03T14:54:38Z")
I don’t see how you could have Biden win the presidency in the same election that Republicans retook the House. Joni Ernst won’t even win her seat this fall, she can go back to castrating pigs.
---
### Author:  [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2020, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/834 "2020-02-03T15:34:41Z")
> [@Hamlet](#):
>
> I know, right? The “attacks” are relatively easy because Dershowitz’s constitutional opinion that a crime is necessary to impeach is so catastrophically wrong. Which, were you not so deeply ingrained in partisanship, would indicate to you that maybe, since almost every expert in the field disagrees with him, he’s catastrophically wrong. And I posted numerous responses to Curtis that showed that Dershowitz’s adoption of his argument was catastrophically wrong. You are wrong too. It’s clear, to me, to most other posters in this thread, to almost every con-law expert, to everyone but Dershowitz and his lackeys, that that is a misinterpretation of the term.
>
> This paragraph actually makes me sad. I like to think that, in most things, rationality and evidence are guiding lights. I like to think that lawyers, especially, have the ability to discern good arguments from bad arguments and the ability to cite to actual evidence for that position. When I see a lawyer so clearly putting his abilities as a lawyer aside to make an untenable argument based solely on partisanship, it makes me sad. Doing it to protect the rights of the accused (like criminal defense attorneys) or to make money (like many attorneys) or to get name recognition, or a combination of all three (like Dershowitz), sure. But to work so hard to make a bad argument on a message board simply for partisanship sake, makes me sad.
>
> I know I pointed all this out (and still unrefuted by you) earlier, but here goes again. “Misdemeanors”, as used by the founders in the Impeachment Clause, does not mean “little crimes”. You’re using a 2020 definition for a 1783 word. First, it would be very poor writing to say “for Big crimes and little crimes”, it’s redundant and unnecessary. If you could impeach for little crimes, of course you can impeach for big crimes.
>
> But there’s more. You have, of course, Hamilton’s writing. You have John Adams saying: "“If an office be granted to hold so long as he behaves himself well in the office, that is an estate for life, unless he lose it for misbehaviour; for it hath an annexed condition to be forfeited upon misdemeanor, and this by law is annexed to all offices, they being trusts; and misdemeanors in an office is a breach of trust.” You have a 1796 South Carolina opinion saying: "“is liable for misdemeanors in office, and subject to impeachment for misconduct if he misbehaved.” You have other state constitutions using the term misdemeanors and they did not require criminal offenses. You have actual senators and judges from that era who committed no crimes, but were impeached and removed. You have James Madison saying that misdemeanors was too broad and would include non-criminal conduct and then it gets passed. You have the great Justice Story saying, very specifically, that no crime had to have occurred to impeach.
>
> There is a mountain of evidence that you and Dershowitz simply ignore. And that’s a shame. But at least Dersh is getting paid and getting name recognition.
>
> Baloney. “High crimes and misdemeanors” is that standard that the founders adopted. You can’t impeach for just doing a bad job, or being disliked, but you can for actual abuse of power. Or being drunk on the bench. Or taking the name of the Lord in vain. Or trying to give land to Britan. Or for extorting a foreign govenment to announce an investigation into a political rival.
misdemeanors, kinda like “well-regulated”
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2020, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/835 "2020-02-03T16:39:32Z")
Have you a point, or will you just settle for an insinuation?
---
### Author:  [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2020, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/836 "2020-02-03T17:31:01Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> By all sanity, it should be done and Roberts should agree.
>
> In reality, the only reason to do it is similar to if someone much larger than you makes you just so so angry that all you can do is look at them and shriek in helpless anger. And the only reason to do that is simply because you can’t restrain yourself.
I get it. In conditions of pre-fascism “doing the right thing” is made to seem hopeless and pointless.
---
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2020, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/837 "2020-02-03T17:37:13Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#):
>
> I get it. In conditions of pre-fascism “doing the right thing” is made to seem hopeless and pointless.
We’ll have to see what Bloomberg does but, over running for President legitimately or just seeking to become a king maker, I think that he would have done better to team up with Arnold Schwarzenegger and run a campaign to vote everyone out of office and restart the system.
---
### Author:  [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2020, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/838 "2020-02-03T17:43:33Z")
Let’s say Elizabethnie Bidengeig wins the presidency in 2020. When the President learns that Donald Trump, Jr. is going to run in 2024, the President orders Trump’s tax returns to be released.
Folks on either side of the Trump impeachment, I’m curious which precedent do you think should control:
1. It may be bad, and against the law, but it just isn’t impeachable. (Clinton obstruction/perjury charges.)
2. It was a violation of the law, but it was at least partially in the public interest, so we should give the President the benefit of the doubt that the action was not corrupt. (Dershowitz interpretation of the forthcoming Trump acquittal by the Senate.)
3. The bar has been lowered so far that just having this old, gay, female president is sufficient for impeachment. (Joni Ernst interpretation of the Trump impeachment by the House.)
4. It’s a violation of the law, so of course removal from office is warranted. (Tricked you! This isn’t actually a precedent!)
---
### Author:  [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2020, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/839 "2020-02-03T17:52:13Z")
Alexander has cast his lot with the criminals.
He has justified his vote this week, based on **trinp policies that he agrees with, regardless of crimes committed** , on Meet the Press. He acknowledged it was wrong and couldn’t mitigate it by anything he knew about the situation. Sasse, and Rubio have come out and agreed with him or more. Doesn’t this impicate the whole party in imeachable crimes?
---
### Author:  [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)
#### Post date: [February 3, 2020, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/840 "2020-02-03T18:13:44Z")
> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> Let’s say Elizabethnie Bidengeig wins the presidency in 2020. When the President learns that Donald Trump, Jr. is going to run in 2024, the President orders Trump’s tax returns to be released.
>
> Folks on either side of the Trump impeachment, I’m curious which precedent do you think should control:
>
> 1. It may be bad, and against the law, but it just isn’t impeachable. (Clinton obstruction/perjury charges.)
> 2. It was a violation of the law, but it was at least partially in the public interest, so we should give the President the benefit of the doubt that the action was not corrupt. (Dershowitz interpretation of the forthcoming Trump acquittal by the Senate.)
> 3. The bar has been lowered so far that just having this old, gay, female president is sufficient for impeachment. (Joni Ernst interpretation of the Trump impeachment by the House.)
> 4. It’s a violation of the law, so of course removal from office is warranted. (Tricked you! This isn’t actually a precedent!)
#4.
I’ll take your word that the President would be breaking a law by making someone’s tax return public. But either way, it’s a very chilling and intimidating kind of abuse of power, and it moves us even further into banana-republic territory than we already are, where the whole point of controlling the government is to enrich yourself and your friends, and bring the hammer down on your enemies.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524.md?page=41)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524.md?page=43)