ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Congressional hearings , donald trump , impeachment , Trump administration , Trump controversies

Closed Thread
Old 17th November 2019, 11:52 AM   #2161
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,287
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 11:57 AM   #2162
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,287
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 11:58 AM   #2163
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,938
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
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
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 12:05 PM   #2164
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

Last edited by kellyb; 17th November 2019 at 12:08 PM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 12:09 PM   #2165
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,925
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
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 View Post
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.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 12:15 PM   #2166
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,287
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
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.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 12:19 PM   #2167
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,883
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
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.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 12:23 PM   #2168
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,883
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
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.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 12:25 PM   #2169
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 77,138
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
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.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 12:28 PM   #2170
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,925
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 View Post
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?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 12:31 PM   #2171
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,287
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 17th November 2019 at 12:33 PM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 12:31 PM   #2172
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 77,138
Originally Posted by Speedskater View Post
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.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 12:34 PM   #2173
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 77,138
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
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.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 12:42 PM   #2174
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 77,138
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 12:44 PM   #2175
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,883
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
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.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 12:47 PM   #2176
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 77,138
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 12:49 PM   #2177
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,925
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
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.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 12:51 PM   #2178
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 77,138
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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 View Post
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.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 12:53 PM   #2179
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,287
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 17th November 2019 at 12:56 PM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 12:56 PM   #2180
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,883
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
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.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 12:58 PM   #2181
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 12:58 PM   #2182
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,883
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
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.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 01:00 PM   #2183
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,883
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
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.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 01:02 PM   #2184
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
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
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 01:03 PM   #2185
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 01:03 PM   #2186
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,925
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.
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
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 01:07 PM   #2187
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 22,860
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?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 01:07 PM   #2188
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,938
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is special pleading. You can't make a standard that applies to Trump but nobody else.
Why not? The DoJ does!
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 01:09 PM   #2189
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,925
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-/
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 01:27 PM   #2190
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,316
It is plain pathetic to insist that the President only has to rise above the level of an common criminal to remain unimpeachable.
__________________
“Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”-Sen. Lindsey Graham
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 01:38 PM   #2191
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,287
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
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.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 01:40 PM   #2192
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,287
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 01:47 PM   #2193
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,390
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
The federal bribery statute at 18 U.S.C. §201(b)(2)
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
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.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 17th November 2019 at 02:03 PM. Reason: Added URL
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 01:57 PM   #2194
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 77,138
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
... 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.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 02:02 PM   #2195
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 77,138
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
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.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 02:05 PM   #2196
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,287
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post


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.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 02:06 PM   #2197
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 19,295
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 02:08 PM   #2198
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,390
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
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.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 17th November 2019 at 02:12 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 02:13 PM   #2199
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 41,373
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
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.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 02:15 PM   #2200
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,287
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
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.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:05 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.