House Impeachment Inquiry

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

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/polit...-threaten-her/


ninja'd by acbytesla

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

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


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

Quote:

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/politics...-wrecking-ball

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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]

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. 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]

Originally Posted by kellyb

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.

Quote:

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]

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

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]

Quote:

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.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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]

Originally Posted by Speedskater

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]

Originally Posted by alfaniner

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]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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]

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

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.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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

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"?

Quote:

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.

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.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

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.

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.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by kellyb

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

You'll have to specify what behavior you're referring to, because I really don't want to play a guessing game.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

The problem is your dishonesty Zig.

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

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You'll have to specify what behavior you're referring to, because I really don't want to play a guessing game.

Absolutely fair request.

What about this?
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...313-story.html

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why? It's a stupid question, and I owe you nothing. Ask a better question, and you might get an answer.

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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/politics...-wrecking-ball

[Captain_Swoop]

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?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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

Why not? The DoJ does!

[Stacyhs]

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-m...itch-somalia-/

[The Great Zaganza]

It is plain pathetic to insist that the President only has to rise above the level of an common criminal to remain unimpeachable.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by kellyb

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

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.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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.

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

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

The federal bribery statute at 18 U.S.C. §201(b)(2)

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Hey presto!

https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1194416369661566977

Even more forward progress on the bribery front:
https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/stat...49526148648961

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.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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

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.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Even more forward progress on the bribery front:
https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/stat...49526148648961

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.

Yeah, the Democrats have switched to bribery and extortion for a couple days now.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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.

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.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Yeah, the Democrats have switched to bribery and extortion for a couple days now.

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.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Even more forward progress on the bribery front:
https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/stat...49526148648961

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.

Thanks. Now I know why this constitutes bribery.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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.

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

Seems pretty straightforward to me.