House Impeachment Inquiry

[acbytesla]

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

How do you figure?

 

[acbytesla]

Lying requires knowing the truth and consciously avoiding it.

I consider recklessly talking out of one's ass with no regard for the truth is also lying. May not be the dictionary definition, but in my view it is little different.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

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

And this shall be his legacy.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Lying requires knowing the truth and consciously avoiding it.

I consider recklessly talking out of one's ass with no regard for the truth is also lying. May not be the dictionary definition, but in my view it is little different.

If the recklessly talking out of one's ass with no regard for the truth... is understood to be sincere... then welcome to the Trump base.

 

[Stacyhs]

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


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

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

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove material sent to AAH

Did Trump lie when he implied that Yovanovitch was, in any way, responsible for what happened in Somalia?

 

[AnonyMoose]

Pardon my intrusion but...

Shouldn't the main point here be all about the fact that the president (small "p") of the United States of America would even say (to the entire world on Twitter, no less) such a derogatory remark about a US diplomat who has served her country for 30+ years?

Isn't that bad enough just in and of itself? What word you choose to label/describe such a scuzzy unpresidential action matters not.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove reference to material sent to AAH

The fricken president of the United States just committed the lowest of the low, he undermined the authority of US diplomacy around the world by throwing one of its own service members under the bus, just because.

He's not a 'president' by any stretch of the the word. He's a dangerous ******* embarrassment.

 

[Ziggurat]

Pardon my intrusion but...

Shouldn't the main point here be all about the fact that the president (small "p") of the United States of America would even say (to the entire world on Twitter, no less) such a derogatory remark about a US diplomat who has served her country for 30+ years?

You can prioritize points however you want to, but I don't agree with this at all.

Trump is crude, and I'd prefer it if he didn't constantly attack anyone who criticizes him on twitter. But I think you're making a grave mistake here. Namely, what the hell does the length of her job have anything to do with anything? Diplomats, no matter how long they serve, are still just people. They aren't holy. They aren't above criticism. And working for the government doesn't invest people with virtue, not even after decades of doing so. Were Trump's attacks unwarranted? The basis for evaluating that should have nothing to do with the fact that she "served her country for 30+ years".

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Thank you, AnonyMoose.

 

[Giordano]

Pardon my intrusion but...

Shouldn't the main point here be all about the fact that the president (small "p") of the United States of America would even say (to the entire world on Twitter, no less) such a derogatory remark about a US diplomat who has served her country for 30+ years?

Isn't that bad enough just in and of itself? What word you choose to label/describe such a scuzzy unpresidential action matters not.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove reference to material sent to AAH

but let's not lose focus on the key point here: The fricken president of the United States just committed the lowest of the low, he undermined the authority of US diplomacy around the world by throwing one of its own service members under the bus, just because.

He's not a 'president' by any stretch of the the word. He's a dangerous ******* embarrassment.

My thanks too!

 

[smartcooky]

Trump is crude, and I'd prefer it if he didn't constantly attack anyone who criticizes him on twitter.

Yeah, but you'll forgive him for it, and he will have your undying support anyway, amirite?

But I think you're making a grave mistake here. Namely, what the hell does the length of her job have anything to do with anything?

Well actually, it has a lot to do with everything.

If length of service wasn't relevant then we'd have 19 year olds as ambassadors, and 30 year veterans as interns.

Perhaps you've never been in public service (I was for 20 years) so you don't understand that the senior, high ranking members of any public service are looked up to as mentors and role models. There will be a large number of young, foreign service interns who will be looking at Marie Yovanvovich, and Bill Taylor, and George Kent... and they will be thinking "I aspire to be that person" It certainly hammers the staff's confidence when the president uses his standing to verbally flog their senior staff in public.

Like the armed services, the Foreign Service has a ranking and seniority system and a chain of command. There are very good reasons why an Admiral will never publicly criticise a Captain in front of the crew. If he were to do so, he would destroy the crew's confidence in their Captain.

Diplomats, no matter how long they serve, are still just people. They aren't holy. They aren't above criticism. And working for the government doesn't invest people with virtue, not even after decades of doing so.

No-one here is arguing that, but I would argue that they are due respect, especially the long serving ones, because they have earned that respect.

Were Trump's attacks unwarranted?

Yes they were, and not only that, they were outright lies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Pardon my intrusion but...

Shouldn't the main point here be all about the fact that the president (small "p") of the United States of America would even say (to the entire world on Twitter, no less) such a derogatory remark about a US diplomat who has served her country for 30+ years? [and war heroes, and gold star families, and denying immigrant soldiers' their rights, and ...]

Isn't that bad enough just in and of itself? What word you choose to label/describe such a scuzzy unpresidential action matters not. [snip]

ftfy

 

[Stacyhs]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove reference to material sent to AAH

Nevertheless, MY post brought up a new subject: Trump's very clear implication that Yovanovitch's time in Somalia somehow was connected with it turning bad" was a lie and he was attempting to smear her.

You brought up libel, which I never mentioned. I then wrote:

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?

(#2170)

You have repeatedly refused to answer that question resorting to calling it a 'stupid question':

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.

You've twisted yourself into knots trying to avoid answering a perfectly reasonable question. Don't bother. It's become very clear why you won't answer it: you don't want to/can't admit he was lying.

 

[Craig4]

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.

He accused her of being responsible for the civil war in Somalia in his attempt to intimidate her. Split the hair if you want to but the fact remains.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

“The Impeachment started before he even became President.” @greggutfeld @FoxNews
“All they do is bring up witnesses who didn’t witness anything.” @KatrinaPierson @SteveHiltonx

Nothing matters except the two transcripts of the presidential calls, and the statement of no pressure put out by Ukraine!

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Pardon my intrusion but...

Shouldn't the main point here be all about the fact that the president (small "p") of the United States of America would even say (to the entire world on Twitter, no less) such a derogatory remark about a US diplomat who has served her country for 30+ years?

Isn't that bad enough just in and of itself? What word you choose to label/describe such a scuzzy unpresidential action matters not.

In the military, there is the offense of “Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer”*.

That’s the label that should have been tagged to the President/Commander-In-Chief the first time he began hurling childish names and attacking and insulting members of both houses.

In my world, the number of congressional censures would already be in triple digits. Not censuring such behavior condones and normalizes it.

Sad.


From Wikipedia: The offense is defined in the punitive code, Article 133, of the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), enacted at 10 U.S.C. § 933.
Article 133. Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman:
Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
— 10 U.S.C. § 933 (effective 2008)
The elements are:
That the accused did or omitted to do certain acts; and
That, in the circumstances, these acts or omissions constituted conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.
Here "officer" is understood to include commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen of both sexes, hence the more common term conduct unbecoming. A gentleman is understood to have a duty to avoid dishonest acts, displays of indecency, lawlessness, dealing unfairly, indecorum, injustice, or acts of cruelty.

 

[kellyb]

You're so predictable.

Since when does this forum consist of segregated discussions like private conversations? Perhaps you could help us by listing who are the participants in each discussion.

Wasn't it you a couple days ago that said I was obligated to go pages and pages back to post #36?

I really wish we had automatically nestled quoting turned on here, because without it, everyone's always reading everyone else's words out of context, and it creates confusion.

Anyone should be free to jump in on a discussion, but when people weren't following the point originally being discussed, it turns into a rat's nest of lost trains of thought, and unnecessary ensuing drama.

 

[GlennB]

I really wish we had automatically nestled quoting turned on here ...

If I'm thinking of what you're thinking of then NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO, please no.

Some of the squabbles here would result in nested quotes running to 10 pages, with the deepest nest falling off to the right by about 4 screen widths.

 

[kellyb]

If I'm thinking of what you're thinking of then NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO, please no.

Some of the squabbles here would result in nested quotes running to 10 pages, with the deepest nest falling off to the right by about 4 screen widths.

Usually you just have mods tell members to please start a new comment string after quotes get large, to not mess up view-ability. It becomes a matter of forum etiquette.

Even when they do get long because a member or two failed to follow etiquette, it's still superior to the viewability of a thread where people are bickering over literally nothing at all, as a result of the train of thought and original argument being lost, and new members chiming in, having no idea what other people are even talking about.

I absolutely prefer long scrolls to get to the newest comment over that nonsense.

 

[kellyb]

If length of service wasn't relevant then we'd have 19 year olds as ambassadors, and 30 year veterans as interns.

Ambassadorships in the US are frequently given to wealthy donors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ighest-bidder-elizabeth-warren-has-plan-that/

Trump’s thin-skinned and reckless overreaction to the leaked cables confirmed Darroch’s assessment. But what the incident also highlighted is the striking differences between Britain’s diplomatic corps — which consists of highly trained, career ambassadors — and America’s, which frequently consists of wealthy donors who pay for their posts despite having no relevant qualifications for the job.

It’s legalized political corruption — and it’s long past time to end it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/10/obama-donors-top-embassy-jobs-rewards

US diplomats cry foul as Obama donors take over top embassy jobs
This article is more than 6 years old
Former ambassador likens practice to 'selling of public office' as figures show average amount of cash raised is $1.8m per post

Susan Johnson, president of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), which represents career US diplomats, added: "The giving of ambassadorships to people who have raised a lot of money for the campaign has increased and that's a concern to us in particular.

"There was some thought that with Obama being such a 'change agent' that he might really do things differently – but it has just been a bigger let down."

 

[TragicMonkey]

Usually you just have mods tell members to please start a new comment string after quotes get large, to not mess up view-ability. It becomes a matter of forum etiquette.

Even when they do get long because a member or two failed to follow etiquette, it's still superior to the viewability of a thread where people are bickering over literally nothing at all, as a result of the train of thought and original argument being lost, and new members chiming in, having no idea what other people are even talking about.

I absolutely prefer long scrolls to get to the newest comment over that nonsense.

I just skim past when the discission turns to the discussion itself rather than the topic of discussion. It's too meta and gives me a headache to read posts talking about other posts. Although it is somewhat amusing when people are demanding others "admit your error" because it sounds like the Inquisition bullying heretic theology. I imagine all the voices in such a conversation are very, very shrill, and full of manic energy. Like Daleks screeching!