House Impeachment Inquiry

[acbytesla]

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.

Here's the thing. Unless you're a moron, you NEVER say why you're firing someone. (unless, they may only be removed for cause) The moment you do you're inviting the reason to be a factor.

And if it is obvious that the reason is something unethical, illegal or indefensible like refusing to suck your dick, then you ABSOLUTELY CAN'T.

 

[smartcooky]

It isn't intimidating because she says its intimidating. That's not how it works. It's intimidating if it intimidates. Her

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.

Cavemonster in right on the money

USC § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;(2) cause or induce any person to—
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;​

 

[Cain]

Does this criticism also apply to Trump? If not, why not?

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.

This is the point I was going to establish, which just shows Ziggurat is a dishonest -- indeed hackish -- water carrier. When Trump says something absolutely hackish for personal political gain, and his hypocrisy is almost unrivaled, Ziggurat will not challenge the stupidity. He'll adopt another frame, "It was good optics!" or " It was effective! He rallied supporters, didn't he?" Waterboy.

 

[alfaniner]

I predict that the House Members will be monitoring The PDJT's Tweets during the inquiry more closely from now on (R and D both). And that he will post some more blather about the witnesses that will be read to the chamber by Mr. Schiff.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Cavemonster in right on the money

USC § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;(2) cause or induce any person to—
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;​

Unfortunately the rub lies "with intent to", difficult to prove.

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

They have a hard furrow to plough, especially when someone in Schiff's position is trying to silence them. Such is their dedication to their leader that they bravely speak out anyway - and make complete arses of themselves in the process. It's weird behaviour, but people inside a cult always seem weird to those outside it.

 

[smartcooky]

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?

People who get all their information from Faux News have a tendency to parrot Faux News talking points, just like you did in that post!

 

[JoeMorgue]

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.

That whole "You can fire somebody for literally not reason but not for this list of unapproved bad reasons" is only a paradox because people are too stupid to just lie.

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

Absolutely. A well-judged move, very far from stupid. Who'd have thought Schiff had it in him?

 

[phiwum]

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.

He didn't seem to know her name at the time of the phone call, referring to her as "the woman".

But he knew that some people said she had badmouthed him. That's surely enough.

 

[acbytesla]

Unfortunately the rub lies "with intent to", difficult to prove.

That is the criminal statute. What's important is to recognize an impeachment is NOT a criminal proceeding. Whether Trump intent was to intimidate is irrelevant. And being POTUS, he should have a grasp of the power that he yields.

 

[Cavemonster]

Unfortunately the rub lies "with intent to", difficult to prove.

Agreed. I think this would be a difficult charge to prosecute (if a sitting president were inditable).

I don't think it's a great candidate for an article of impeachment because of that. Just add it to the list of examples of unacceptable behavior.

 

[Matthew Best]

Donald? Donald Trump? Is that you? I am so thrilled to see you posting in our forum!

I guess that means that nobody can say anything bad about him any more, for fear of violating the MA.

 

[Matthew Best]

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.

Hold on a minute. This is a skeptics' forum, after all.

 

[Cavemonster]

That is the criminal statute. What's important is to recognize an impeachment is NOT a criminal proceeding. Whether Trump intent was to intimidate is irrelevant. And being POTUS, he should have a grasp of the power that he yields.

I think because impeachment is political, it makes it even more important that the charges are as unambiguous and non-subjective as possible.

The real court is public opinion and the question is how much of a pretzel do GOP senators have to twist themselves into to try to spin the charges.

They're not going to vote for removal even if video of Trump strangling Epstein came out tomorrow. But the worse they look carry water for him in the Senate trial, the more of their supporters and potential Trump voters decide to stay home because they're not enthused next November.

 

[CapelDodger]

Hold on a minute. This is a skeptics' forum, after all.

As a sceptic I accept the possibility, however unlikely it seems. In contrast, it's not remotely possible that Trump withdrew Yovanovich because she was doing a bad job for the US. He just wouldn't care about that.

 

[kellyb]

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?

People who get all their information from Faux News have a tendency to parrot Faux News talking points, just like you did in that post!

What he said was one of my first thoughts, and I never get news from Fox. If I feel the need to try to find a conservative perspective, which is once a week at most, I look to National Review or Reason, or some of the smartest conservatives on twitter.

 

[Trebuchet]

That is the criminal statute. What's important is to recognize an impeachment is NOT a criminal proceeding. Whether Trump intent was to intimidate is irrelevant. And being POTUS, he should have a grasp of the power that he yields.

Trump's awareness of his power is limited to his anger that there are limits on it.

 

[kellyb]

Trump's just a troll. But trolling isn't illegal. And I don't protect the devil for his sake, but for my own.

Oh, and Trump isn't a God-King, he's a God Emperor.

Those are good links. I'd never seen either before.

Trump isn't just trolling with stuff like this, though. I really don't think there's any way he's unaware of the target he paints on people's backs on twitter. He has to know it and like it to some extent. I am assuming the man is psychologically ill in a peculiar, perfect classical fascist kind of way, though.

Although, I guess if you're a public figure in the spotlight in a political controversy, there's going to be a flood of hate coming at you from somewhere either way. But he LIKES inciting violence. You see it in his rallies. He's super abnormal like that.

 

[I Am The Scum]

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?

"When you think about it, isn't it the mailman's fault for delivering the threatening letter that I wrote?"

That's how dumb this argument is.