House Impeachment Inquiry

[acbytesla]

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.

Witness intimidation is a crime. Whether it can necessarily be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is another question. Trump's tweets during witness testimony is no different than a criminal talking about the witness on the stand during the trial. It's pretty clear that witness tampering and obstruction of justice are going to be some of the articles of impeachment.

But this IS NOT a criminal proceeding it is an inquiry to whether Trump committed a high crime which may or may not be criminal. Also, there are no sides here, only a search for the truth and a consideration whether it warrants a Senate trial and potential removal and disqualification.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

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.

Perhaps, but there's no legal there there.

Ask Roger Stone.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

...as Roger Stone found out when he appeared to make an attempt to threaten Judge Amy Berman-Jackson.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ver-his-case-says-he-didnt-mean-threaten-her/


ninja'd by acbytesla

 

[kellyb]

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.

Do you think he's attempted to incite at his rallies? Is strong undeniable implication without saying it overtly really a loophole with that? (eta: he HAS said it overtly sometimes, too.) If you think he doesn't incite at his rallies, we might just have to agree to disagree. Because that has seemed nuts for forever that he's gotten away with that for so long.

He keeps DARING us to make it a legal issue. Not sure if the tweet is a legit offense, but the era of him just getting away with the dare is over, I sense. I'm not some inner party strategist or lawyer, though. But he could make all of this new charges stuff stop by just stopping, himself.

 

[Stacyhs]

Prepare yourselves for a shock, folks. I suggest sitting down.....


Fact checking Trump's tweet regarding Yovanovitch's history:

AP FACT CHECK: Trump Twists Ex-Ambassador’s Record

Yovanovitch served as a low-level diplomat in Somalia in her first foreign tour after joining the foreign service in her 20s. She had nothing to do with the 1984 famine that preceded her arrival in Somalia and contributed to that country’s unraveling, nor anything to do with the government’s collapse and the onset of anarchy after she left.
And while she served in Somalia, she had decidedly limited influence in a junior post.

TRUMP: “Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go?”
THE FACTS: There’s no credence to the notion that countries “turned bad” when Yovanovitch went to them.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...trump-portrays-ex-ambassador-as-wrecking-ball

By what, criticizing them? You really want to criminalize criticism?

Trump wasn't just criticizing Yovanovitch. He was LYING about her record in an attempt to smear her during her testimony. This is what he does to anyone who dares defy him. This kind of attack from Trump can make or break a Republican up for re-election. This was a warning to them. Come on, Zig, stop being intellectually dishonest.

 

[acbytesla]

Trump wasn't just criticizing Yovanovitch. He was LYING about her record in an attempt to smear her during her testimony. This is what he does to anyone who dares defy him. This kind of attack from Trump can make or break a Republican up for re-election. This was a warning to them. Come on, Zig, stop being intellectually dishonest.

Trump lied? Say it isn't so!


I thought he was like Jimmy Carter. You know, honest to a fault, cares about the homeless, actually works with his hands, a military veteran and faithful to the same woman his entire life.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you think he's attempted to incite at his rallies?

We're not talking about his rallies. We're talking about some specific tweets.

Is strong undeniable implication without saying it overtly really a loophole with that?

Call it a loophole, call it a burden of proof, whatever you want to call it, incitement has to actually be pretty direct. It can't be this vague implication, that doesn't suffice. Nor would you want such a vague standard to become the norm, because I guarantee you it would be applied to more than just Trump.

 

[Ziggurat]

Trump wasn't just criticizing Yovanovitch. He was LYING about her record in an attempt to smear her during her testimony.

I guarantee you that his tweet doesn't rise to the level of libel. There are actually very few factual claims contained within it, those factual claims are true, and the implications he makes with those facts are subject to wide subjective interpretation.

This is what he does to anyone who dares defy him. This kind of attack from Trump can make or break a Republican up for re-election.

Yes. He's petty and mean-spirited. And politics is a bare-knuckle sport. This is not news. Nor is it criminal.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was thinking that. They're probably alert for Trump twitters generally during hearings, not just in this specific case.

People forget these folks all have staff members working for them.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs
Trump wasn't just criticizing Yovanovitch. He was LYING about her record in an attempt to smear her during her testimony.

I guarantee you that his tweet doesn't rise to the level of libel. There are actually very few factual claims contained within it, those factual claims are true, and the implications he makes with those facts are subject to wide subjective interpretation.

This is what he does to anyone who dares defy him. This kind of attack from Trump can make or break a Republican up for re-election.

Yes. He's petty and mean-spirited. And politics is a bare-knuckle sport. This is not news. Nor is it criminal.

Did I say it was libel? No. But that does not change the fact he was lying about her record in an attempt to smear her. Can you at least admit that?

 

[acbytesla]

We're not talking about his rallies. We're talking about some specific tweets.



Call it a loophole, call it a burden of proof, whatever you want to call it, incitement has to actually be pretty direct. It can't be this vague implication, that doesn't suffice. Nor would you want such a vague standard to become the norm, because I guarantee you it would be applied to more than just Trump.

The problem is your dishonesty Zig. You're acting as if POTUS is just Joe Schmoe and not someone who wields a lot of power and has tremendous influence. I know you know better. You're just making excuses.

Great power DEMANDS great responsibility and caution. The greater the power the greater the responsibility.

If I'm driving a bumper car at a carnival, it is great fun to smash into other cars. But I don't act that way on the freeway.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How can a witness interview last 4 to 6 hours, when they only have 5 to 10 minutes of information?

That's pretty standard for American courts.

Though I do think you are wrongly dismissing a lot of the testimony.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Won't it be ironic when The PDJT gets impeached for trying to damage the guy who won't be his election opponent anyway?

We need a better descriptive term here: that is the same kind of dirty tricks Nixon was involved in.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

By what, criticizing them? You really want to criminalize criticism?

Yeah! When it's the POTUS in the public media commenting on an ongoing legal proceedings. That's a well known crime both of witness intimidation and jury tampering.

You seem to be sucking up the dishonest talking point of the GOP and Trump that free speech overrides illegal interference in a Congressional hearing on impeachment charges.

You can't intimidate a witness and call it your free speech right. There are GOP legislators and a GOP attorney there in the hearing, so Trump is lying when he says he has no representation in the hearing.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah! When it's the POTUS in the public media commenting on an ongoing legal proceedings.

This is special pleading. You can't make a standard that applies to Trump but nobody else.

You can't intimidate a witness and call it your free speech right.

You can't expand the definition of intimidation to include any and all criticism.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

It's part of a trial, akin to a Grand Jury deciding whether to indict. The next step is the actual trial, but the Grand Jury investigation is no less a formal hearing.

Depositions are also part of the pretrial, also formal legal proceedings.

 

[Stacyhs]

Did I say it was libel? No. But that does not change the fact he was lying about her record in an attempt to smear her. Can you at least admit that?

Come on, Zig. Answer my question.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We're not talking about his rallies. We're talking about some specific tweets.

That doesn't mean additional witness tampering didn't also occur at Trump's rallies.

Call it a loophole, call it a burden of proof, whatever you want to call it, incitement has to actually be pretty direct. It can't be this vague implication, that doesn't suffice. Nor would you want such a vague standard to become the norm, because I guarantee you it would be applied to more than just Trump.

Incitement?

Trump's witness intimidation has been clearly specific no matter how you dismiss it in your mind.

 

[acbytesla]

This is special pleading. You can't make a standard that applies to Trump but nobody else.

You can't expand the definition of intimidation to include any and all criticism.

That's NOT special pleading.

You think being President is like anyone else? Really Zig? If you talk. maybe 6 people listen or care. When POTUS speaks, everyone cares. Even if we don't want to.

 

[Ziggurat]

Come on, Zig. Answer my question.

Why? It's a stupid question, and I owe you nothing. Ask a better question, and you might get an answer. If you think Trump lied, spell out exactly what you think the lie is.