• 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.
Ziggurat said:
It isn't intimidating because she says its intimidating. That's not how it works. It's intimidating if it intimidates. Her testimony shows no sign that she was intimidated. Her response to Schiff only demonstrates she is willing to play Schiff's game.

And think for a moment about the precedent Schiff is trying to set here. He's trying to make any witness against the president above criticism. That is a very bad precedent to set.
Click to expand...

Smartcooky already pointed out that the intimidation is against other potential witnesses. And as also pointed out, intimidation doesn't need to work in order to be criminal.

Was Schiff assisting in the attempt? Shall we bring him up on charges too?
Click to expand...

Come on, Zig. Surely you know this is a ridiculous question.

Like I said: the point is to try to prohibit any criticism of witnesses against Trump.
Click to expand...

As opposed to whay? Prohibiting any criticism against Trump?

I think you're projecting at this point.
 
Trump Tweets
A new Republican Star is born. Great going @EliseStefanik!

Liz Wheeler
@Liz_Wheeler
Holy cow. Rep. @EliseStefanik absolutely wrecks Adam Schiff & the Democrats’ entire impeachment premise.
 
CapelDodger said:
Prohibit?!? Are you losing it?
Click to expand...

That will be, unfortunately, the long-term effect of extreme cases of Sunk Cost.

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
This, I think, is key.

There are several witnesses who are testifying under oath that Trump committed an impeachable offence. There are no witnesses who are prepared to testify under oath that Trump did not commit an impeachable offence. Many of the people who could testify one way or the other are either refusing to appear, or are being prevented from doing so by the White House.
Click to expand...

Well, we have a few posters here willing to do that, it seems.
 
alfaniner said:
Won't it be ironic when The PDJT gets impeached for trying to damage the guy who won't be his election opponent anyway?
Click to expand...

Conspiracy theories are pretty transitive. They can "One Degree of Kevin Bacon" Warren or Harris or Beto or whoever into it.
 
I went to "above top secret" and the #1 thread there now is about ukranian whateverention.

Buried within piles of intentionally deceptive nonsense, I was able to find or link surf to Fiona Hill answering the question easily, just by asking, if by "Ukraine", they mean the Ukrainian government.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
By what, criticizing them? You really want to criminalize criticism?
Click to expand...

Again, if the stupid bitch doesn't like it, he can stay of Twitter. If the Dems find a viable avenue of attack they should be all means use it. So what if it's not a crime? The House isn't running a trial.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Smartcooky already pointed out that the intimidation is against other potential witnesses. And as also pointed out, intimidation doesn't need to work in order to be criminal.
Click to expand...

And furthermore, of the target decides to go ahead and testify anyway regardless of feeling intimidated (as Amb Yovanovich did), that doesn't mean the attempt at intimidation didn't work. A person can be, and feel intimidated, but still resolve to do the right thing.
 
smartcooky said:
If I publicly criticised witnesses, even if it was just on social media, during an official hearing or a trial in which I was a defendant, the judge would have me jailed, with no access to the internet.
Click to expand...

People keep pointing out that this isn't a trial, which is why Trump's lawyers can't cross examine. And no, I don't think your claim is remotely accurate. That seems like a pretty blatant first amendment violation.
 
Craig4 said:
Again, if the stupid bitch doesn't like it, he can stay of Twitter. If the Dems find a viable avenue of attack they should be all means use it. So what if it's not a crime? The House isn't running a trial.
Click to expand...

Schiff claimed it was a crime. It seems like you don't care about whether or not that's true, only whether or not it helps your side.
 
Ziggurat said:
People keep pointing out that this isn't a trial, which is why Trump's lawyers can't cross examine. And no, I don't think your claim is remotely accurate. That seems like a pretty blatant first amendment violation.
Click to expand...

No it is not. The first Amendment is not an unlimited license to say whatever you want under any and every circumstance. There are limits on the freedom of speech.
 
Ziggurat said:
By what, criticizing them? You really want to criminalize criticism?
Click to expand...

If it's to instigate mass harassment, it's not just criticism. Criticism alone, the single tweet, is not what's problematic, really.

I keep going back and forth on this, but I think there's a (moral) there, there.
 
acbytesla said:
No it is not. The first Amendment is not an unlimited license to say whatever you want under any and every circumstance. There are limits on the freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

How does this fall afoul of any of those limitations? There was no threat contained within the tweet. It's not libelous. And it's not incitement. Schiff claimed witness intimidation, but that's stretching the definition way too far. It cannot be that witnesses against you are immune to criticism.

kellyb said:
If it's to instigate mass harassment, it's not just criticism. Criticism alone, the single tweet, is not what's problematic, really.
Click to expand...

Incitement to criminal action is illegal. But those tweets do not contain any incitement. Nothing in the tweets tells anyone to do anything, let alone engage in imminent illegal activity.

I keep going back and forth on this, but I think there's a (moral) there, there.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but there's no legal there there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom