# 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:** 8
### Author:  [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2020, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/141 "2020-01-22T15:31:14Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> 1. And as regards the idea that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 election, I’ll repeat what I’ve said before:
I guess I mostly agree with you, I think (?), except here:
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> a) It is criminal for an American politician to work with a foreign government, in the aim of advancing his personal political campaign.
I don’t think I fully agree with this. If some politician goes to say, Mexico, on official business _and_ for photo ops to use for a re-election campaign, is that a criminal act? I don’t think so. Even if the official visit would not have happened but for re-election material, I wouldn’t say that’s criminal so long as there is a legitimate basis for the visit.
~Max
---
### Author:  [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2020, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/142 "2020-01-22T15:38:12Z")
> [@RickJay](#):
>
> What are you defining here as a “law enforcement officer?” I cannot think of any way in which the President is an LEO. He does not act as one in any practical way. He is not a sworn law enforcement officer in the statutorial sense of any jurisdiction in the United States. He is not en employee of the state in any classification of LEO I can think of; he’s not a cop, sheriff, game warden, FBI agent, MP, air marshal, postal inspector, etc. etc.
He’s the head of all federal law enforcement agencies, and were it not for the statutes which establish those agencies it would be the President himself who enforces the entirety of federal law.
ETA: I imagine he would nominate deputies for the Senate to confirm, despite the lack of a law establishing the office of deputy.
~Max
---
### Author:  [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2020, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/143 "2020-01-22T15:50:25Z")
> [@Max\_S](#):
>
> He’s the head of all federal law enforcement agencies, and were it not for the statutes which establish those agencies it would be the President himself who enforces the entirety of federal law.
>
> ETA: I imagine he would nominate deputies for the Senate to confirm, despite the lack of a law establishing the office of deputy.
>
> ~Max
This is a distinction that hinges on accepted practice and execution of duties. The Chief of Police is just that – the chief, or highest ranking, law enforcement officer in a city. That the chief of policy ultimately answers to the Mayor doesn’t change that. Likewise the CIO is the chief information officer, and just because they answer to the CEO does not actually make the CEO an IT person.
[The independence of the justice department](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-independence/doj-independence-entrenched-and-ingrained-will-survive-trump-historian-law-prof-idUSKCN1IM2DP) is admittedly a convention and not a law, but an important one. The president may set the direction of the US law enforcement agencies via their various heads, but he is not a law enforcement agent himself.
---
### Author:  [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2020, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/144 "2020-01-22T16:03:36Z")
So I’ve been checking out the Twitter accounts of my Republican senators. It wasn’t what I expected.
The comments are 99.9% negative. I was going to say 100% but I just saw one brief tweet from a supporter on Burrs account ( none on Tillis’s yet) so I’ll give him that. I love it. Thom Tillis is dropping his drawers for Trump on national TV and NO ONE has given him so much as a quick thank you.
Maybe their supporters post on their campaign accounts ?
OK, there’s a handful of supportive messages there, but it’s still about 90% negative.
Boy, these guys are putting it all in the line for Trump, aren’t they? It’s like they can’t get ANY votes unless the Gangster Clown God asks his worshippers for a favor.
For the first time in a long time, I’m optimistic.
---
### Author:  [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2020, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/145 "2020-01-22T16:11:15Z")
> [@steronz](#):
>
> This is a distinction that hinges on accepted practice and execution of duties. The Chief of Police is just that – the chief, or highest ranking, law enforcement officer in a city. That the chief of policy ultimately answers to the Mayor doesn’t change that.
Well, it is the President’s job to make sure the law is faithfully executed. That part is right there in his job description. Even the executive power itself, I’m not sure how you can separate enforcement of the law from execution of the law.
~Max
---
### Author:  [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2020, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/146 "2020-01-22T16:11:16Z")
> [@Max\_S](#):
>
> I agree with what you have explicitly written here.
>
> I disagree with you here on principle. I think the President _is_ a law enforcement officer, and I think the statutes of Congress are the standards by which the President must adhere, moreso than the UCMJ.
>
> My read of the defense is that Mr. Trump brought up Biden/Burisma for a legitimate foreign policy purpose, to reassure Ukraine that the U.S. would not strong-arm Ukraine into dropping an investigation while operating under an obvious conflict-of-interest.
>
> You are writing as if Mr. Trump & associates, who are under an obvious conflict of interest, was strong-arming Ukraine into _opening_ an investigation. That is a separate matter addressed around p.81, where the defense argues that Mr. Trump didn’t strong-arm Ukraine into opening an investigation (that was all Sondland, according to the defense). The point of these later pages, 99-107, is to justify the mention of the DNC/Crowdstrike and Biden/Burisma on the call.
>
> I disagree with you on this, too. I certainly don’t think it is an _abuse of power_ for the President to reassure a foreign country that going forward we won’t pressure them to drop anti-corruption investigations when we have a clear conflict of interest. Mr. Trump would benefit personally from an investigation into Burisma or Biden Jr. But, as I would personally use the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, you would have to convince me that this personal gain was the actual motive behind the mention. The defense brings up a legitimate foreign policy motive, and until you prove to me that this legitimate motive does not apply or contradicts the evidence, I cannot conclude that the mere mention of Biden/Burisma constitutes an abuse of power.
>
> And hint, neither will Republican senators.
>
> I do not see any such accusation in the defense brief. Only that there was a clear conflict of interest when V.P. Biden pressured Ukraine to drop their prosecutor general only days after said prosecutor obtained a court order to seize Burisma’s founder’s property, Mr. Biden’s actual motivation and bipartisan support notwithstanding.
>
> No, from what I can tell the defense argument is that John Durham’s “investigation into the investigation” of Russian collusion prompted or justified the President’s informal MLAT request. The defense also notes that asking about Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election does not imply that Russia did not attempt to interfere with the 2016 election. It also argues that when President Trump said “there are a lot of things that went on” that expanded the scope from just the DNC/Crowdstrike to other forms of Ukrainian interference such as “Ukrainian officials who had sought to undermine then-candidate Trump during the campaign”, eg: Ambassador Chaly with her op-ed for _The Hill_.
>
> ~Max
Max, I’ve researched this extensively and I’d like to see a cite for their being any precedent or procedure laid out for an “informal MLAT request”. MLAT is a treaty with signatories and it lays out terms and conditions. Its purpose is to protect American citizens from injustice in countries that no not conform to the rule of law.
I’m taking the position that the idea (excuse) of an “informal MLAT agreement” is up there with the idea of an “informal search warrant”. It does not exist except as the most misleading euphemism possible for “illegal law enforcement action”.
---
### Author:  [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2020, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/147 "2020-01-22T17:01:28Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#):
>
> Max, I’ve researched this extensively and I’d like to see a cite for their being any precedent or procedure laid out for an “informal MLAT request”. MLAT is a treaty with signatories and it lays out terms and conditions. Its purpose is to protect American citizens from injustice in countries that no not conform to the rule of law.
>
> I’m taking the position that the idea (excuse) of an “informal MLAT agreement” is up there with the idea of an “informal search warrant”. It does not exist except as the most misleading euphemism possible for “illegal law enforcement action”.
Good catch. Upon rereading the brief (p.101) I see they draw a distinction between formal MLAT requests and informal requests. They justify the informal request with the DOJ’s criminal procedure rule 278 (part A, I think)[https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-278-informal-means](https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-278-informal-means)
~Max
---
### Author:  [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2020, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/148 "2020-01-22T17:15:56Z")
> [@Max\_S](#):
>
> My read of the defense is that Mr. Trump brought up Biden/Burisma for a legitimate foreign policy purpose, to reassure Ukraine that the U.S. would not strong-arm Ukraine into dropping an investigation while operating under an obvious conflict-of-interest.
Well, they chose a bizarre way of going about that. “I’m going to stop giving you military assistance in order to guarantee that you won’t be strong-armed! And when you comply with my demands, the military assistance will resume!”
That theory of the crime – that holding up aid is an anti-corruption measure – isn’t credible on its face when we look at the facts that are universally agreed upon.
---
### Author:  [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2020, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/149 "2020-01-22T17:25:03Z")
> [@Max\_S](#):
>
> Here’s some snippets from the exchange, note that there were pauses and other words between. Nadler’s speech included this:
>
> "\*So far, I’m sad to say I see a lot of senators voting for a cover-up, voting to deny witnesses – an absolutely indefensible vote, obviously a treacherous vote. A vote against an honest consideration of the evidence against the president. A vote against an honest trial. A vote against the United States.
>
> A real trial, we know, has witnesses. You are here to do your duty, permit a fair trial. All the witnesses must be permitted. That’s elementary in American justice. Either you want the truth and you must permit the witnesses, or you want a shameful cover-up. History will judge. So will the electorate.\*"
>
> The defense team eventually got to respond and took umbrage, with Jay Sekulow saying,
>
> "_That’s the way it works, Mr. Nadler? Is that the way you view the United States Constitution? Because that’s not the way it was written. That’s not the way it’s interpreted. And it’s not the way the American people should have to live. I will tell you what is treacherous, come to the floor of the Senate and say “executive privilege and other nonsense.”_
>
> Shortly thereafter the presiding officer chided both sides:
>
> “_I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and president’s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body. Those addressing the Senate should remember where they are._”
>
> ~Max
How is any of that relevant to what I posted? Nadler explicitly said that they were lying. Your quotes have nothing to do with that.
---
### Author:  [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2020, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/150 "2020-01-22T17:31:39Z")
This page has a clip of what I was referring to.
> **[Nadler, White House lawyers clash in late-night debate](https://thehill.com/homenews/house/479297-nadler-white-house-lawyers-clash-in-late-night-debate/)**
>
> House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) clashed with White House lawyers during a marathon debate over rules for the Senate impeachment trial that dragged past mid…
But it is true that they’re not supposed to do that and the chief justice did indirectly admonish him for it.
---
### Author:  [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2020, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/151 "2020-01-22T18:22:38Z")
[Trump Impeachment Lawyer Utters ‘Biggest Lie Ever’ Told On Senate Floor](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-lawyer-biggest-lie-ever-senate_n_5e280c41c5b67d8874a96e63)
> [@](#):
>
> Twitter users mockingly accused White House counsel Pat Cipollone of telling the “biggest lie ever” on the Senate floor after he vouched for Donald Trump during the president’s impeachment trial.
>
> Cipollone, who is leading Trump’s defense, claimed Trump “is a man of his word” during the proceedings on Tuesday night.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2020, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/152 "2020-01-22T18:28:12Z")
Well, two. “Fuck you!”.
---
### Author:  [@Wolf333](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wolf333)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2020, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/153 "2020-01-22T18:37:26Z")
> [@Max\_S](#):
>
> He’s the head of all federal law enforcement agencies, and were it not for the statutes which establish those agencies it would be the President himself who enforces the entirety of federal law.
>
> ETA: I imagine he would nominate deputies for the Senate to confirm, despite the lack of a law establishing the office of deputy.
>
> ~Max
He is also the Commander In Chief of the armed forces. That doesn’t make him a Marine.
---
### Author:  [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2020, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/154 "2020-01-22T18:41:10Z")
> [@Max\_S](#):
>
> Maybe I’m just too tired but what are you referring to with “this thing”? The DNC server? or the Biden/Burisma thing? or Sondland’s opinion? And what do you mean by “toireup”?
>
> Sorry in advance…
>
> ~Max
I meant that there is no reason for an adult to believe impotus was doing anything except his own business, and shafting the US in trying to manipulate the ukraine govt.
WHere do you think the rubber hits the road on any of these arguments? Where do they get decided and implemented, so that this discussion has a meaning for the real world and you aren’t just wasting your time?
It’s a judge that has to decide these things. You don’t even seem to be aware that they have a job to do in deciding the relevance or conversely the ridiculousness of any argument. Are you not seeing any riduculous in the arguments?
I refer to trump as toirnop sometimes. Or other spellings. It’s a hobby of mine.
---
### Author:  [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2020, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/155 "2020-01-22T18:43:07Z")
> [@Wolf333](#):
>
> He is also the Commander In Chief of the armed forces. That doesn’t make him a Marine.
Yes. He’s a civilian. He’s the commander but has no operative function except to be the commander. In fact that is the whole reason and point of having a civilian commander. If he goes beyond that it is a withering of democracy.
---
### Author:  [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2020, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/156 "2020-01-22T18:50:13Z")
> [@Max\_S](#):
>
> Good catch. Upon rereading the brief (p.101) I see they draw a distinction between formal MLAT requests and informal requests. They justify the informal request with the DOJ’s criminal procedure rule 278 (part A, I think)[https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-278-informal-means](https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-278-informal-means)
>
> ~Max
Well, it’s certainly not parts B or C or D or E or F, which all describe specific processes that weren’t followed in this case. And the only reason A might hold up marginally better than a snowball in Hell is that the phrase “shocks the judicial conscience” has ceased to have any meaning in the age of Trump.
Do you understand that Ukraine is not what is referred to “as a rule of law” country? Do you understand that Ukraine has a long tradition of using its judicial system for political persecution, much in the same way that Russia does? It’s not like he asked Great Britain for this “favor”.
I don’t know about you, but I think the most disturbing part of this story is Trump trying to set up his opponents son to be tortured and potentially murdered. You may think I’m being dramatic, but this stuff happens all the time in the former Soviet Republics, I’ve been following the stories since before Trump slithered down that escalator in 2015.
PM me if you want a reading list.
---
### Author:  [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2020, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/157 "2020-01-22T18:57:32Z")
> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> Well, they chose a bizarre way of going about that. “I’m going to stop giving you military assistance in order to guarantee that you won’t be strong-armed! And when you comply with my demands, the military assistance will resume!”
>
> That theory of the crime – that holding up aid is an anti-corruption measure – isn’t credible on its face when we look at the facts that are universally agreed upon.
Perhaps I have done a poor job of relaying the defense argument. Biden/Burisma is not, in the defense theory, directly related to the withholding of funds. The defense argues that the withholding of funds was due to concerns about the new Ukrainian administration’s ability to fight corruption and concerns about foreign aid burden-sharing, both of which were apparently addressed to the President’s satisfaction in early September. Defense brief p.89-96, see also **Sage Rat** ’s summary points 2 & 3 in post #78-[POST=22081782]79[/POST].
The defense cites VP Pence’s Sept. 1 talk with President Zelenskyy, the August 29 inauguration of the new _Rada_ (Ukrainian parliament), the September 5 commencement of a High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine, and finally the September 11 meeting between President Trump and Senator Portman as convincing the President to lift the pause on the aid. VP Pence’s talk was apparently the most significant factor. (So the theory is that the September 9 headlines are merely a coincidence.)
~Max
---
### Author:  [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2020, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/158 "2020-01-22T19:02:02Z")
> [@Wolf333](#):
>
> He is also the Commander In Chief of the armed forces. That doesn’t make him a Marine.
No, but does make him a military commander. A military officer even.
I’m not saying he is a general, not until he is actually in the field commanding an army. But he’s still an officer within that organization.
~Max
---
### Author:  [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2020, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/159 "2020-01-22T19:04:54Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#):
>
> WHere do you think the rubber hits the road on any of these arguments? Where do they get decided and implemented, so that this discussion has a meaning for the real world and you aren’t just wasting your time?
I think that happens this week, in the Senate. Right now, even.
~Max
---
### Author:  [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2020, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524/160 "2020-01-22T19:11:31Z")
> [@Max\_S](#):
>
> No, but does make him a military commander. A military officer even.
>
> I’m not saying he is a general, not until he is actually in the field commanding an army. But he’s still an officer within that organization.
>
> ~Max
No he is not. He is the civilian commander and has no other function. When he arrogates more functions to himself, it is unconstitutional.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524.md?page=7)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-trial/846524.md?page=9)