• 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:
We're not talking about his rallies. We're talking about some specific tweets.
Click to expand...

I feel like you don't want to address the rallies, because it'll set the precedent that he does "that" at the rallies, so maybe it's "that" with the twitter impropriety, too. It is indeed how I FEEL. But I'll let it go.

I do know they're separate issues, so what's true in one case is not necessarily true in the other.

Any chance you'll give me something like a yes or maybe on "His behavior in the rallies sometimes might be legally questionable"?

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.
Click to expand...

I think you're probably right there. It's above my paygrade to try to figure out, anyway. I don't find threatening his ass and letting the lawyers take it from there bad of Schiff, though. And Schiff's hyperbole has made me seriously irritated before.
 
acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, the President is like everyone else under the law, except as specified by the law. And there are no president-specific laws regarding witness intimidation. Therefore he is like everyone else in this regard. How much you care is irrelevant.
 
kellyb said:
Any chance you'll give me something like a yes or maybe on "His behavior in the rallies sometimes might be legally questionable"?
Click to expand...

You'll have to specify what behavior you're referring to, because I really don't want to play a guessing game.
 
Ziggurat said:
Why? It's a stupid question, and I owe you nothing. Ask a better question, and you might get an answer.
Click to expand...

Ah...nice way to avoid answering my question.

If you think Trump lied, spell out exactly what you think the lie is.
Click to expand...


I already did. But I'll supply it once again:

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.
Click to expand...
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...-wrecking-ball
 
Trump Tweets

Tell Jennifer Williams, whoever that is, to read BOTH transcripts of the presidential calls, & see the just released ststement from Ukraine. Then she should meet with the other Never Trumpers, who I don’t know & mostly never even heard of, & work out a better presidential attack!

The Crazed, Do Nothing Democrats are turning Impeachment into a routine partisan weapon. That is very bad for our Country, and not what the Founders had in mind!!!!

Republicans & others must remember, the Ukrainian President and Foreign Minister both said that there was no pressure placed on them whatsoever. Also, they didn’t even know the money wasn’t paid, and got the money with no conditions. But why isn’t Germany, France (Europe) paying?

Where is the Fake Whistleblower?
 
Trump tried to tie Yovanovitch to Somalia's problems. That was a lie.

"Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad," Trump tweeted during the Nov. 15 hearing. "She started off in Somalia, how did that go?
Click to expand...

In 1988, the U.S. government froze aid to Somalia in response to reports about human rights abuses and the government attacking its own people, Menkhaus said. Other countries also withdrew aid. The Somali government lost the ability to pay its soldiers, the soldiers defected and a civil war swept the country.

The U.S. government cut off aid to Somalia, a country whose strategic importance was dwindling as the Cold War ended.

"None of that had anything to do with the U.S. foreign service in Mogadishu or Washington," Menkaus said. "The idea that any single U.S. government official could be blamed for the early period of civil war which was when she there is ludicrous."
Click to expand...
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...inaccurately-disparages-yovanovitch-somalia-/
 
It is plain pathetic to insist that the President only has to rise above the level of an common criminal to remain unimpeachable.
 
kellyb said:
Do you understand that accusing people of things like that is the WORST way of effectively communicating and possibly persuading? Does that matter, if so?

You know what this is, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Click to expand...

You're right, it is. However, if you think Zig is open to persuasion, you would be mistaken.

Zig's pretense that POTUS is not unique and therefore is only responsible for the same level of care as anyone else is intellectually dishonest. I KNOW he knows that because Zig is not an idiot. I know that because I have read his posts.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yes, the President is like everyone else under the law, except as specified by the law. And there are no president-specific laws regarding witness intimidation. Therefore he is like everyone else in this regard. How much you care is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

No, he is not. Just like Elon Musk must be careful about his tweets, so must the President. Words matter.
 
d4m10n said:
The federal bribery statute at 18 U.S.C. §201(b)(2)
Click to expand...

d4m10n said:
Hey presto!

https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1194416369661566977
Click to expand...

Even more forward progress on the bribery front:
https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/status/1196149526148648961

Happy to see the congresscritters getting their **** together on this.

I hope to see mainstream media outlets posting explainers on what "bribery" meant to the people who wrote it into the constitution as an impeachable offense.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Even more forward progress on the bribery front:
https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/status/1196149526148648961

Happy to see the congresscritters getting their **** together on this.

I hope mainstream media follows suit and starts posting explainers on what "bribery" meant to the people who wrote it into the constitution as an impeachable offense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Democrats have switched to bribery and extortion for a couple days now.
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly correct. As long as no laws are broken, I would do or condone anything, no matter how unethical, dishonest or immoral to see Trump removed from office. The ends justify the means.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yeah, the Democrats have switched to bribery and extortion for a couple days now.
Click to expand...
Extortion still falls under the (lengthy and difficult) explainer about "high crimes," IMO. Bribery should be more straightforward, especially if you're appealing to FedSoc types.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Extortion still falls under the (lengthy and difficult) explainer about "high crimes," IMO. Bribery should be more straightforward, especially if you're appealing to FedSoc types.
Click to expand...

The DEFINITION of bribery is the exchange of something of value for an official act.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom