• 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.
If John Gotti has tweeted what the piece of **** of the US did to a witness it would be a clear criminal offence.

But dear Leader makes the Sun to shine.
 
Ziggurat said:
Because if it actually had a chance to keep her from saying something negative about Trump, Schiff wouldn't take that chance.

But he knew it didn't have any chance to do that, because it wasn't actually intimidation.
Click to expand...

Even if you're right, so what? It worked.
 
For me the most ridiculous aspect of this -- attempting to smear Schiff for intimidating a witness by showing them a tweet sent by Trump while they testified -- is that Marie Yovanovitch had already testified that Trump had intimidated her. He removed her from her job. He removed her as ambassador to Ukraine precisely because she was reputed to be a widely respected anti-corruption advocate and was resisting efforts by Trump to get the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens.

In the context of that series of events, Schiff says, to the effect, "And while you are here testifying, look what president Trump just tweeted about you." The media is going to read the tweet to her as soon as her testimony is over and ask fior her reaction. Why not show her the tweet while she's still in the hearing and get her reaction while she's under oath?

What is the problem with that? I don't see any problem. I do see for someone determined to defend Trump at all costs that could be one possible line of attack. Schiff shouldn't have shown her the tweet. Schiff intimidated her. I don't see that as a very good point of defense but his defenders don't have a whole lot to work with. ;)
 
kellyb said:
Does she have to be made aware in the middle of the trial, though? Who was watching her twitter feed?
Click to expand...

No, it was smart to make her aware. It blunted the Trumptrash on the committee from attacking her, made them waste the member time praising her instead of scoring their points and made it generally difficult to defend Trump. It broke no law and.it damaged Trump so it was the right thing to do.
 
newyorkguy said:
For me the most ridiculous aspect of this -- attempting to smear Schiff for intimidating a witness by showing them a tweet sent by Trump while they testified -- is that Marie Yovanovitch had already testified that Trump had intimidated her.
Click to expand...

For me, the most ridiculous aspect of this is Ziggurat's insistence that he is the authority on whether Yovanovitch was intimidated by the tweet, after Yovanovitch (as you say) testified in real time that she found the tweet to be intimidating.

Ziggurat, so far as I know, is neither a mind-reader nor a career Foreign Service Officer.

On the other hand, I must admit that, when it comes to the legal question of whether Trump's tweet could be considered witness tampering or intimidation, Ziggurat is probably every bit as qualified as The Big Dog.
 
Craig4 said:
No, it was smart to make her aware. It blunted the Trumptrash on the committee from attacking her, made them waste the member time praising her instead of scoring their points and made it generally difficult to defend Trump. It broke no law and.it damaged Trump so it was the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

And look at what Schiff asked Yovanovitch. He asked what affect the President's attacks might have on "other witnesses". It's not just witness intimidation of Yovanovitch but anyone that might follow her.
 
newyorkguy said:
For me the most ridiculous aspect of this -- attempting to smear Schiff for intimidating a witness by showing them a tweet sent by Trump while they testified -- is that Marie Yovanovitch had already testified that Trump had intimidated her. He removed her from her job. He removed her as ambassador to Ukraine precisely because she was reputed to be a widely respected anti-corruption advocate and was resisting efforts by Trump to get the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens.
Click to expand...

Trump can remove ambassadors for any reason, or even no reason at all. Especially ambassadors appointed by other presidents. It's an inherently political position. She had no legitimate expectation to hold her job past Trump's inauguration.
 
Marie Yovanovitch had no expectation to stay in her job?
The State Department’s request went in early March to Marie L. Yovanovitch, a longtime diplomat who had served six presidents: Would she extend her term as ambassador to Ukraine, scheduled to end in August, into 2020? Link
Click to expand...
 
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...
It can't hurt to remind Republicans of what kind of person they're enabling. One or two of them may still have some lingering decency and sense of shame.
 
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...
Didn't Trump say to Zelensky that Yovanovitch had "bad things coming to her"?

I do fear that harm is going to come to somebody because of Trump's incendiary smears.
 
Ziggurat said:
Trump can remove ambassadors for any reason, or even no reason at all. Especially ambassadors appointed by other presidents. It's an inherently political position. She had no legitimate expectation to hold her job past Trump's inauguration.
Click to expand...

So? Typically their post last 3 years and are not removed during the middle of a posting. They also are not defamed.

It is highly unlikely Trump even knows the name of most Ambassadors. Do you think Trump really knows how good or bad Yovanovitch was as an Ambassador? No, he needed to get her out of the way so he could carry out the plan of smearing Biden.

I'm curious Zig. Very simple questions.

1. Do you think that President Trump withheld military aid?

2. Did he do it to get Ukraine to announce that they were investigating the Bidens?

3. Do you think that is a proper use of Presidential powers?
 
CapelDodger said:
Didn't Trump say to Zelensky that Yovanovitch had "bad things coming to her"?

I do fear that harm is going to come to somebody because of Trump's incendiary smears.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget what Trump supporters are like. Trump's tweet undoubtedly gave the green light for all manner of threats and harassment from his cult.
 
Last edited:
Craig4 said:
No, it was smart to make her aware. It blunted the Trumptrash on the committee from attacking her, made them waste the member time praising her instead of scoring their points and made it generally difficult to defend Trump. It broke no law and.it damaged Trump so it was the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
Oh, no doubt!
 
Craig4 said:
Let's not forget what Trump supporters are like. Trump's tweet undoubted gave the green light for all manner of threats and harassment from his cult.
Click to expand...

I think they've had the greenlight, but it works like a lazer pointer with a cat. It will draw them to her. But that wasn't his core motive. Although, he probably does know it happens and likes it. Just look at his encouragement of violence in his rallies. He's sick, and digs that stuff. ETA: it really is his secondary motive if not his first. It could be his primary motive. But he knows and likes it. I really do believe that.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
So? Typically their post last 3 years and are not removed during the middle of a posting. They also are not defamed.

It is highly unlikely Trump even knows the name of most Ambassadors. Do you think Trump really knows how good or bad Yovanovitch was as an Ambassador? No, he needed to get her out of the way so he could carry out the plan of smearing Biden.

I'm curious Zig. Very simple questions.

1. Do you think that President Trump withheld military aid?

2. Did he do it to get Ukraine to announce that they were investigating the Bidens?

3. Do you think that is a proper use of Presidential powers?
Click to expand...

My favorite aspect of the 'can fire for any reason' is that it emphatically is not true, and anyone who seriously thinks it is has either no viable grasp of ethics and law, or is not arguing in good faith.

If they seriously believe it is true, then they believe an employer could fire their employees for not sucking their dick. Or not washing their car. Or not giving money to their favorite politician. Or not breaking the law for them.

It's absolutely, trivially, untrue. Asking everyone to take that assertion as good faith argument is rude, in and of itself. In casual conversation where it is understood as shorthand for, 'any non-protected statues or other illegal/unethical reasons', that's one thing, when discussing the exact abuse of power that normally unstated caveat pertains to is silly.

But you'll never get them to acknowledge that. You can't reason out the unwilling. Reasoning is not enough of an incentive to them. You have to beat them.
 
Ziggurat said:
Because if it actually had a chance to keep her from saying something negative about Trump, Schiff wouldn't take that chance.

But he knew it didn't have any chance to do that, because it wasn't actually intimidation.
Click to expand...
It was vile and bullying, as is to be expected from Trump. It's also intimidating for anyone who hasn't yet put themselves in the firing-line the way Yovanovitch so bravely has.
 
Ziggurat said:
Trump can remove ambassadors for any reason, or even no reason at all. Especially ambassadors appointed by other presidents. It's an inherently political position. She had no legitimate expectation to hold her job past Trump's inauguration.
Click to expand...

She had no legitimate reason to expect to be fired, either, especially as she remained in her post well past Trump's inauguration and right up to the time when her role was 'an inconvenience' to Trump. That Trump did fire her, at that time, speaks volumes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom