House Impeachment Inquiry

[kellyb]

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.

I'm not even sure that theory has ever been tested. I'm not sure there's a consensus among legal scholars on that issue, either. Can you demonstrate that there is? I'm really interested in knowing. I can see in my head that "high crimes and misdemeanors" means abusing that uniquely high office, but what counts as "abuse" seems like a matter of legitimate debate, maybe.

 

[kellyb]

I love that congress apparently has a whole menu of deliciously applicable laws to choose from here with this "arms for headlines" stuff.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm not even sure that theory has ever been tested. I'm not sure there's a consensus among legal scholars on that issue, either. Can you demonstrate that there is? I'm really interested in knowing. I can see in my head that "high crimes and misdemeanors" means abusing that uniquely high office, but what counts as "abuse" seems like a matter of legitimate debate, maybe.

Is Trump going to be criminally charged with witness tampering after his term is up because of his tweet? No. As POTUS, Trump enjoys a level of criminal immunity almost unfathomable. Remember, his lawyers have been arguing that he may not only be not indicted but not even be investigated for a crime. Not even committing a murder on 5th Avenue. According to the President and given Barr's recent speech he is not even accountable to Congress. So, whether the President can be taken to task for witness intimidation will be left to Congress.

 

[Steve]

You can't be serious. There's like more than 10,000 lies Trump has told documented by the news media since he took office.

As of October 14 of this year the tally was 13,435 lies over 993 days.

It must be fascinating to live life in a bubble where Trump’s lies have not been documented.No better example of indoctrinated.

 

[a_unique_person]

I love that congress apparently has a whole menu of deliciously applicable laws to choose from here with this "arms for headlines" stuff.

That pretty much defines Trump's whole life of being a criminal.

 

[acbytesla]

It must be fascinating to live life in a bubble where Trump’s lies have not been documented.No better example of indoctrinated.

Actually that's not uncommon. IIRC, the Washington Post has been keeping tallies of Presidential lies through the last 5 presidents. Trump's number of lies dwarfs the combined total of them all.

 

[Ziggurat]

You can't be serious. There's like more than 10,000 lies Trump has told documented by the news media since he took office.

I am serious, and you're confused. The question was specifically in regards to that tweet. Lies he has told elsewhere don't answer my question. It wasn't in reference to any other statements he has made.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I am serious

Then how about dealing with the implied statement that she was in some way responsible for issues in Somalia when her presence there as Junior diplomat had zero to do with the country's problems.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, he is not. Just like Elon Musk must be careful about his tweets, so must the President. Words matter.

Well, no. Elon Musk has specific statutory obligations on his speech related to his role in the company. Politicians, including the president, do not have any such extra statutory obligations regarding their speech, even regarding matters of government. The reason this should be so (in the sense of likely, not proper) are pretty obvious.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then how about dealing with the implied statement that she was in some way responsible for issues in Somalia when her presence there as Junior diplomat had zero to do with the country's problems.

That's just it, it's only implied. It's never actually stated. Which would make attempting a libel case impossible. It's got to be actually stated to be libel, reading between the lines doesn't suffice.

 

[kellyb]

Is Trump going to be criminally charged with witness tampering after his term is up because of his tweet? No. As POTUS, Trump enjoys a level of criminal immunity almost unfathomable. Remember, his lawyers have been arguing that he may not only be not indicted but not even be investigated for a crime. Not even committing a murder on 5th Avenue. According to the President and given Barr's recent speech he is not even accountable to Congress. So, whether the President can be taken to task for witness intimidation will be left to Congress.

I definitely know what you're talking about there, and yes, I don't think that's even up for debate, really. It's just true.

 

[Cavemonster]

That's just it, it's only implied. It's never actually stated. Which would make attempting a libel case impossible. It's got to be actually stated to be libel, reading between the lines doesn't suffice.

You seem to have lost track of the thread of this reply Ziggurat.

This particular exchange you're replying to goes back to an exchange with Stacyhs where you asked her to say what Trump lied about. Stacyhs very specifically stated she was not talking about whether Trump could be successfully prosecuted for libel but about the fact that Trump lied.

You can trace the conversation back by clicking the little arrows next to the poster's names in the quote boxes.

So this discussion of libel is quite off topic.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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.

Lunatics to the last.

 

[phiwum]

delete

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's just it, it's only implied. It's never actually stated. Which would make attempting a libel case impossible. It's got to be actually stated to be libel, reading between the lines doesn't suffice.

You're outdoing yourself.

 

[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.

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.

Trump tried to tie Yovanovitch to Somalia's problems. That was a lie.

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

Quote:
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."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...inaccurately-disparages-yovanovitch-somalia-/

I am serious, and you're confused. The question was specifically in regards to that tweet. Lies he has told elsewhere don't answer my question. It wasn't in reference to any other statements he has made.

Then how about dealing with the implied statement that she was in some way responsible for issues in Somalia when her presence there as Junior diplomat had zero to do with the country's problems.

That's just it, it's only implied. It's never actually stated. Which would make attempting a libel case impossible. It's got to be actually stated to be libel, reading between the lines doesn't suffice.

Stop dancing around my question with all this diverting nonsense. My question was not about whether it rose to a libel case. Was Trump lying when he clearly IMPLIED that Yovanovitch was somehow tied to what happened in Somalia? It's a simple yes or no question, albeit one you clearly do not want to answer. Why is that?

 

[Stacyhs]

You seem to have lost track of the thread of this reply Ziggurat.

This particular exchange you're replying to goes back to an exchange with Stacyhs where you asked him her to say what Trump lied about. Stacyhs very specifically stated he she was not talking about whether Trump could be successfully prosecuted for libel but about the fact that Trump lied.

You can trace the conversation back by clicking the little arrows next to the poster's names in the quote boxes.

So this discussion of libel is quite off topic.

FTFY

 

[Cavemonster]

FTFY

Sorry! I thought I knew! I thought wrong.

 

[Stacyhs]

Sorry! I thought I knew! I thought wrong.

You are forgiven. This time. Don't let it happen again.

 

[Frank Newgent]

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.

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.

Trump tried to tie Yovanovitch to Somalia's problems. That was a lie.

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

Quote:
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."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...inaccurately-disparages-yovanovitch-somalia-/

I am serious, and you're confused. The question was specifically in regards to that tweet. Lies he has told elsewhere don't answer my question. It wasn't in reference to any other statements he has made.

Then how about dealing with the implied statement that she was in some way responsible for issues in Somalia when her presence there as Junior diplomat had zero to do with the country's problems.

That's just it, it's only implied. It's never actually stated. Which would make attempting a libel case impossible. It's got to be actually stated to be libel, reading between the lines doesn't suffice.

Stop dancing around my question with all this diverting nonsense. My question was not about whether it rose to a libel case. Was Trump lying when he clearly IMPLIED that Yovanovitch was somehow tied to what happened in Somalia? It's a simple yes or no question, albeit one you clearly do not want to answer. Why is that?

He can't lie if he can't tell the truth.