• 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:
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?
Click to expand...

Do you hear yourself talk?

"It's not Trump's fault for saying it, it's some else fault for telling her he said it."

He PUT IT ON GODDAMN TWITTER. Are you gonna sit there and argue that he just assumed she wasn't gonna become aware of it?

Of course you are. Or just go "OH LOOK A SQUIRREL!" Any stall, any subtopic, any hairsplit to protect your cult leader.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Do you hear yourself talk?

"It's not Trump's fault for saying it, it's some else fault for telling her he said it."

He PUT IT ON GODDAMN TWITTER. Are you gonna sit there and argue that he just assumed she wasn't gonna become aware of it?
Click to expand...

There was no reason for Trump to think that she'd be aware of it during her testimony. And after her testimony it would be a little bit late for it to influence her testimony. Do you get how time works?
 
Cavemonster said:
I think just a few years ago, the leader of the free world smearing a witness during testimony would have felt a lot more clearly like witness tampering.

But Trump has been very successful at lowering the bar, even among his critics it doesn't feel that bad because of how unprofessionally and criminally he conducts himself on a daily basis.

When I first read the tweet, it did feel like a stretch. But the more I think of it, that's largely because of how low we'd sunk.

Remember when it was an outrage that Obama said a police officer who arrested a Black Harvard professor in his own home who broke no laws "Acted Stupidly". Can you imagine the republican reaction if Obama had been tweeting smears of witnesses against him in real time?

Unfortunately, the new bar is where it is, and Democrats aren't as good at spin as the GOP. In my opinion that's largely because when you care at least somewhat about truth and keeping the institutions of government intact, you're playing with one hand tied behind your back. I do think if they harp too much on those tweets as "imtimidation" they'll be seen as stretching definitions and lose credibility. I sort of wish they had framed their criticism in different wording because that tweeting is WILDLY unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Wow. Yeah. Well put.
 
Ziggurat said:
There was no reason for Trump to think that she'd be aware of it during her testimony. And after her testimony it would be a little bit late for it to influence her testimony. Do you get how time works?
Click to expand...

Yep. That's a nice looking squirrel.
 
Craig4 said:
And since she would find out about it anyway, why not reveal it in such a way as to do the most damage to Trump?
Click to expand...

Because if it actually had a chance to keep her from saying something negative about Trump, Schiff wouldn't take that chance.

But he knew it didn't have any chance to do that, because it wasn't actually intimidation.
 
Ziggurat said:
There was no reason for Trump to think that she'd be aware of it during her testimony. And after her testimony it would be a little bit late for it to influence her testimony. Do you get how time works?
Click to expand...

The actual trial in the Senate where she might be called as a witness lies in the future.

Do you get how the impeachment process - or time - works?
 
Ziggurat said:
Because if it actually had a chance to keep her from saying something negative about Trump, Schiff wouldn't take that chance.

But he knew it didn't have any chance to do that, because it wasn't actually intimidation.
Click to expand...


Now you assume that Yovanovitch will never be in a hearing ever again.
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's not an accurate characterization at all.

I'm going to go with "He was really trying to make her more sympathetic."
 
The Great Zaganza said:
There is a difference between interfering in a US election and releasing information about crimes of an American lobbyist who messed up your country and who happens to be a campaign manager to a Candidate.
It would only be election interference if there is reason to believe that Ukraine officials wouldn't have released the material if Manafort hadn't been working for Trump's campaign.
Click to expand...

Maybe. What about this one?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
Click to expand...

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.
Click to expand...
 
Ziggurat said:
There was no reason for Trump to think that she'd be aware of it during her testimony. And after her testimony it would be a little bit late for it to influence her testimony. Do you get how time works?
Click to expand...

So ******* what? Do you think that it won't be intimidating later? It is Schiff's fault for alerting her to the message? Your analysis is ABSURD. There will be more witnesses to come. Do you think that Trump won't vilify them leading to nutters villifying or threatening them?

Guess what witnesses,? Your cooperation in a legal congressional hearing under subpoena will lead to years of retribution. It won't go under the radar because the President won't let it. You had the gall to perform your CIVIC DUTY. You scumbag.
 
acbytesla said:
So ******* what? Do you think that it won't be intimidating later? It is Schiff's fault for alerting her to the message?
Click to expand...

If it was actually intimidating, then yes, it would be wrong for Schiff to intimidate her in the middle of her testimony. But it wasn't, so it didn't matter.

Your analysis is ABSURD. There will be more witnesses to come. Do you think that Trump won't vilify them leading to nutters villifying or threatening them?
Click to expand...

Like I said: the point is to try to prohibit any criticism of witnesses against Trump.
 
Craig4 said:
Making her aware of the witness tampering is not the same as tampering with the witness. She had a right to know what Trump said about her.
Click to expand...

Does she have to be made aware in the middle of the trial, though? Who was watching her twitter feed?
 
You know maybe I'm not as smart as our glorious leader but if I wanted to make it impossible for people to criticize me I'd stopping doing stupid, "right to the line of illegal so I know my followers will split the hair" things that require "well technically" excuses. Seems easier.

If there's a witness on a stand against me it seems, and again I am a mere mortal and not a God-King like Trump, to just... like not do things to them that require me to make excuses for.

You want to Trump to be a victim and a troll at the same time.
 
Ziggurat said:
Because if it actually had a chance to keep her from saying something negative about Trump, Schiff wouldn't take that chance.
.
Click to expand...

...or he'd have made himself an accessory to witness intimidation.

What if a Republican had alerted her about Trump's tweet? Would the Republican be an accessory? lol
 
JoeMorgue said:
You know maybe I'm not as smart as our glorious leader but if I wanted to make it impossible for people to criticize me I'd stopping doing stupid, "right to the line of illegal so I know my followers will split the hair" things that require "well technically" excuses. Seems easier.

If there's a witness on a stand against me it seems, and again I am a mere mortal and not a God-King like Trump, to just... like not do things to them that require me to make excuses for.

You want to Trump to be a victim and a troll at the same time.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ziggurat said:
If it was actually intimidating, then yes, it would be wrong for Schiff to intimidate her in the middle of her testimony. But it wasn't, so it didn't matter.

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

Moronic and PATENTLY DISHONEST.

You can criticize the witnesses. Fox news can criticize the witnesses. Breitbart can criticize the witnesses. The PRESIDENT who is the DEFENDANT NEEDS to STFU!

If Trump wants to criticize Yovanovitch let him appear before the Grand Jury and explain EXACTLY why Yovanovitch is a bad Ambassador and why he needed to remove her from her post. That would be fair and I would welcome that. For POTUS, the most powerful individual on the planet to rant and rave like a crazed lunatic on Twitter is absurdly unfair to the witnesses.
 
Ziggurat said:
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?
Click to expand...
No. We should defend Captain_Swoop against the charges Ziggurat has trumped up.

Ziggurat said:
Trump's just a troll. But trolling isn't illegal.
Click to expand...
It doesn't even violate the MA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom