• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Adam Schiff is the one who will say anything, no matter how stupid it is? In light of everything that has transpired over the past four years, what a strange comment to make.

And let's not overlook the fact, Trump has been going after Marie Yovanovitch well before Friday's tweet. In a move that was widely criticized, the Trump administration removed her from her post as ambassador to the Ukraine in May 2019. In September it was revealed he had disparaged her in a phone call to Ukrainian president Zelensky. In September CNN reported:
"It is so unprofessional of the President to do that -- to throw a US government employee under the bus, someone as distinguished as Ambassador Yovanovitch is," retired US Ambassador Nicholas Burns told CNN Wednesday. Burns, who served in the US government for nearly three decades, said he had not seen anything like it. "It's injurious to morale and you can imagine how career people feel when they see one of the best people that we have, Masha Yovanovitch, treated like this," he said. Link
Click to expand...

It's really so callous and intensely unfair. This woman served the United States government loyally and with distinction for many years. Trump has destroyed her career and continues to smear her -- as he has a history of doing time and again -- merely to protect himself from well-founded criticism. We have never had a president behave this badly.

The people who defend him are making the cardinal mistake. If the president is allowed to lie and smear people at will then no one is safe. His defenders think it's okay because he isn't targeting someone they like and respect. But it's such a dangerous precedent to establish.
 
Ziggurat said:
That doesn't contradict anything I said. It's perfectly in line with it: Schiff was just posturing for appearances, there was no actual intimidation involved.
Click to expand...

Awwww, are you made because your precarious Trump just got out politiked? If the stupid bitch doesn't like it, he should have stayed off Twitter.
 
Craig4 said:
Awwww, are you made because your precarious Trump just got out politiked? If the stupid bitch doesn't like it, he should have stayed off Twitter.
Click to expand...

I amused that you think your confession that it's just politics is some sort of goal score against me. You're just making my point.
 
Ziggurat said:
It isn't intimidating because she says its intimidating. That's not how it works. It's intimidating if it intimidates.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

Like many of the laws this administration breaks, success is not one of the necessary elements in witness tampering.

The attempt is the crime. Just like obstruction of justice, bribery etc etc.

We may be able to argue whether these tweets are witness tampering beyond a reasonable doubt. But whether they were effective at intimidating is not the bar to determine that.

If Trump had tweeted "If Yovanovitch testifies, I call on loyal Americans to use a second amendment solution!" then it wouldn't matter if Yovanovitch testified, if she felt intimidated, or if the tweet had any practical effect. The attempt is the crime. Being unsuccessful at yoru crime does not negate it.

If you walk into a bank with a gun, point it at the teller and scream "Give me all the money" it doesn't matter if you get arrested before you leave the bank with any money.
 
Ziggurat said:
That doesn't contradict anything I said. It's perfectly in line with it: Schiff was just posturing for appearances, there was no actual intimidation involved.
Click to expand...
Any potential witness with an IQ above a geranium realizes that the Trump treatment is apt bring all sorts of misery into their life, including death threats, legal fees, and loss of employment. So yeah, there is actual intimidation involved regardless if Yovanovitch was intimidated.
 
Craig4 said:
No. Schiff read the tweets because he correctly believed that Trump bullying a long-serving career Foreign Service Officer would make her appear more sympathetic, which in turn neutered the Republican plan to attack her. It worked because Republican questioning went soft after that.
Click to expand...

This! :thumbsup:
 
Ziggurat said:
I amused that you think your confession that it's just politics is some sort of goal score against me. You're just making my point.
Click to expand...

The only point to be scored is Trump's removal from office. Any means, provided they are legal are justified to that end. Even if Schiff twisted Trump's words it's okay because in the end it worked and that's the only thing that matters.
 
varwoche said:
Any potential witness with an IQ above a geranium realizes that the Trump treatment is apt bring all sorts of misery into their life, including death threats, legal fees, and loss of employment. So yeah, there is actual intimidation involved regardless if Yovanovitch was intimidated.
Click to expand...

Precisely. It's the scene in the Untouchables where Frank Nitti says to Elliott Ness "Nice to have a family" except it'snot that subtle. Trump has been intimidating witnesses right from the start. It's not like Yovanovitch is the only one.
 
Upchurch said:
What these articles are missing are how Ukraine attempted to interfere in the election. The gist of the article is that a private Ukrainian citizen, who worked for the DNC, became worried about Paul Manafort’s activities in Ukraine, especially after becoming involved with the Trump campaign.
Click to expand...

From the Politico Europe article, do you think these should qualify as "just unsupported claims from some journalist"?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
Click to expand...

The journalists are people I've never heard of before.

One of the authors is this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Vogel

And the other one is this guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stern
 
Last edited:
Fixed it for me:
varwoche said:
Any potential witness with an IQ above a geranium realizes that the Trump treatment is apt bring all sorts of misery into their life, including death threats perhaps from the POTUS himself, legal fees, and loss of employment. So yeah, there is actual intimidation involved regardless if Yovanovitch was intimidated.
Click to expand...
 
There is a difference between interfering in a US election and releasing information about crimes of an American lobbyist who messed up your country and who happens to be a campaign manager to a Candidate.
It would only be election interference if there is reason to believe that Ukraine officials wouldn't have released the material if Manafort hadn't been working for Trump's campaign.
 
Cavemonster said:
The attempt is the crime.
Click to expand...

Which brings us back to the fact that she might not even have known about the tweet during her testimony if Schiff hadn't read it to her. Was Schiff assisting in the attempt? Shall we bring him up on charges too?
 
Ziggurat said:
Which brings us back to the fact that she might not even have known about the tweet during her testimony if Schiff hadn't read it to her. Was Schiff assisting in the attempt? Shall we bring him up on charges too?
Click to expand...

Are you assuming that without Schiff, the tweet would have stayed a secret?
 
Ziggurat said:
Which brings us back to the fact that she might not even have known about the tweet during her testimony if Schiff hadn't read it to her. Was Schiff assisting in the attempt? Shall we bring him up on charges too?
Click to expand...

Making her aware of the witness tampering is not the same as tampering with the witness. She had a right to know what Trump said about her.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom