• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump defends Yovanovitch attack: 'I have freedom of speech'

Marcus1124 said:
Really? Quite frankly, Trump wasn't there, the ONLY reason that the witness had any friggin' idea what the President was tweeting about her is because the Democratic Chair of the committee READ the tweet to her. Trump had no reason to expect that the witness would know of his tweet until AFTER she was done testifying. If any one would be chilled, wouldn't that mean that anyone would recognize it's chilling power? If so, why on Earth would Schiff have read something to the witness that he would have every reason (according to you) to believe would be chillign to that witness?

But the FACT is that the witness was NOT chilled, and in fact said at one point in her testimony that regardless of the smears and insults, it would do nothing to deter her from her work.
Click to expand...

How about other potential witnesses? Can you possibly conceive that this could deter someone else from coming forward. It's the same crap he's pulling about the WB.
 
Mach said:
Being smeared by a sitting president from the bully-pulpit is sufficient.

Remember, even the appearance of witness tampering is cautioned against by attorney's, they counsel clients to say *nothing*, and certainly not publicly, and certainly not directly disparaging the witness.

Trump would already have been indicted on this already if DOJ could indict a sitting president...Trump did this before and it's documented in the Mueller report. The fact that Trump cannot be held to account due to presidents being above the law, just encourages that behavior, and his supporters...its a problem that will eventually be remedied one way or another.
Click to expand...

Really? Because being criticized by this President seems to be political currency for those in the resistance. Hell, it is worn as a badge of honor by many. As the witness testified, she could not identify a single individual who thought less of her professionally or personally as a result.

This is as stupid as claiming Trump's "assault" on the Press is fascistic and has a "chilling" effect. Name a single reporter that has become less obnoxious and attacking of this President as a result of his "chilling" "assault" on the institution of the press? NONE.

BTW, was it, in your view, obstruction of justice when Obama opined publicly that Hillary didn't do anything criminal of damaging to national security by using her unsecured home server for official business while those actions were under a criminal investigation?
 
Last edited:
What if...? said:
And you got that "do nothing" bit from what conservative outlet again?

Because you and I both know you have no idea whether she was a do nothing or not.
Click to expand...


From her testimony, she said one of her primary focuses in Ukraine was fighting corruption but in subsequent testimony she didn't do much in fighting corruption as we saw with her Burisma answers.


Yeah, a pencil pusher who talks a big game but gets nothing done. She's probably a Democrat.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Trump's actions "would upset American foreign policy", he gets to make foreign policy decisions, he was elected, she is appointed, she carries out his decisions, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

trumps biggest issue there he has no official foreign policy. That's even one of his defenses from his backers, so don't; try to deny it.
 
dobieg said:
Gosh, that almost would make any sort of sense if Trump had also fired Kent, Taylor and a host of others in Ukraine.


But it's,..like,..he didn't so your theory is either delusional or just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

I stand by what I wrote, and so does the testimony and the evidence:
From where I sit, you and your Trump devotees are an accessory to the coverup. Trump wasn't interested in Ukrainian corruption. He was interested in corrupting the Ukraine and when Yovanovitch wouldn't play along, he removed her. Yovanovitch described how, as she sought to promote democracy and rule of law in Ukraine, the president’s lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, worked with a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor to trash her reputation and force her out of her post. That narrative is confirmed by all other witnesses, especially David Holmes, an official in the American Embassy in Kiev, who testified that he had overheard a telephone conversation in which ambassador Sondland assured Trump that his Ukrainian counterpart “loves your ass” and will do “anything you ask him to,” including to open investigations into the family of Mr. Trump’s leading Democratic rival, Joe Biden.
Click to expand...
As I said, Trump was interested in corrupting the Ukraine. Rick Perry Exports His Pay-to-Play Politics to Ukraine - The Texas Observer
 
dobieg said:
From her testimony, she said one of her primary focuses in Ukraine was fighting corruption but in subsequent testimony she didn't do much in fighting corruption as we saw with her Burisma answers.


Yeah, a pencil pusher who talks a big game but gets nothing done. She's probably a Democrat.
Click to expand...
I've seen several post with that narrative. I guess that's the current talking point on Trump TV Fox.

Yovanovitch was carrying out the crucial anti-corruption mission set out by the United States, not by Republicans, not by Democrats. Helping Ukraine's young new president uproot endemic corruption was a key part of an effort to help the country escape Russia's demand that it stay within Moscow's orbit. She explained that helping Ukraine free itself from Russian domination is crucial, partly because if Ukraine fails then Russia will seek to expand further.

That's why her story was not just inspiring but also dispiriting. An American hero, attacked by an American president -- removed from her post not because she failed to do her job but because she was doing it too well. As a result of Trump's actions, US policy went from supporting anti-corruption efforts to combating them. "Which country's interests are served when the very corrupt behavior we have been criticizing is allowed to prevail? Such conduct undermines the US, exposes our friends, and widens the playing field for autocrats like President Putin." Pelosi was right, in the Trump White House, all roads lead to Putin.
 
MTAtech said:
I've seen several post with that narrative. I guess that's the current talking point on Trump TV Fox.

Yovanovitch was carrying out the crucial anti-corruption mission set out by the United States, not by Republicans, not by Democrats. Helping Ukraine's young new president uproot endemic corruption was a key part of an effort to help the country escape Russia's demand that it stay within Moscow's orbit. She explained that helping Ukraine free itself from Russian domination is crucial, partly because if Ukraine fails then Russia will seek to expand further.

That's why her story was not just inspiring but also dispiriting. An American hero, attacked by an American president -- removed from her post not because she failed to do her job but because she was doing it too well. As a result of Trump's actions, US policy went from supporting anti-corruption efforts to combating them. "Which country's interests are served when the very corrupt behavior we have been criticizing is allowed to prevail? Such conduct undermines the US, exposes our friends, and widens the playing field for autocrats like President Putin." Pelosi was right, in the Trump White House, all roads lead to Putin.
Click to expand...


The new president of Ukraine thought she was a knothead.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Trump's actions "would upset American foreign policy", he gets to make foreign policy decisions, he was elected, she is appointed, she carries out his decisions, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
No federal employee is bound to carryout illegal, personal and corrupt orders given by a president. Trump and Giuliani, who allied themselves with corrupt Ukrainian interests and orchestrated a “campaign of disinformation” pushed by “individuals with questionable motives” whose “political and financial ambitions” were in jeopardy as she led an anti-corruption effort in Ukraine.

But thanks for backing the corrupt people not the anti-corruption forces. When you see Bond films, do you also route for the villains?
 
dobieg said:
The new president of Ukraine thought she was a knothead.
Click to expand...

Is that why our State Department asked her to stay in her post for another year -- right before Trump yanked her?
 
MTAtech said:
No federal employee is bound to carryout illegal, personal and corrupt orders given by a president. Trump and Giuliani, who allied themselves with corrupt Ukrainian interests and orchestrated a “campaign of disinformation” pushed by “individuals with questionable motives” whose “political and financial ambitions” were in jeopardy as she led an anti-corruption effort in Ukraine.

But thanks for backing the corrupt people not the anti-corruption forces. When you see Bond films, do you also route for the villains?
Click to expand...

Which means she should do what? She has choices, speak to the State Dept IG, resign, or follow orders. Again, she doesn't set policy, if she believes she was given an illegal order she has steps to take. She didn't take any of them.
 
SCrider said:
trumps biggest issue there he has no official foreign policy. That's even one of his defenses from his backers, so don't; try to deny it.
Click to expand...

If Trump wants a request routed through the Premier or Prime Minister of another country and the Ambassador either refuses or just doesn't do it, what do you think the President is going to do?

You act surprised that you preach the resistance then the President fires people refusing orders. In the real world, you don't get to tell your boss no and get away with it.
 
SCrider said:
How about other potential witnesses? Can you possibly conceive that this could deter someone else from coming forward. It's the same crap he's pulling about the WB.
Click to expand...

First, these are not witnesses in a judicial proceeding (criminal or civil). They are witnesses in a political one proceeding. If these hearings were actual Article III court proceedings, most of the tesitmony would be disallowed as hearsay, and much of the criticism would actually be part of the strategy of any trial attorney of any competence, and not the stuff of "obstruction".

This is fundamentally no different than if someone accused a defense attorney of "obstruction" for going hard against a prosecution witness on cross.

Basically they democrats and their idiot lackeys want to criminalize or render impeachable the President's ability to do anything defending himself against politically motivated attacks.

In fact, they have even argued that the assertion of privilege is evidence of knowledge of guilt. Judges instruct juries every day that the invocation of a legal or constitutional right may NOT be assumed to indicate guilt. The assertion of a constitutional right or privilege cannot be used against someone.
 
Marcus1124 said:
Really? Because being criticized by this President seems to be political currency for those in the resistance. Hell, it is worn as a badge of honor by many. As the witness testified, she could not identify a single individual who thought less of her professionally or personally as a result.
Click to expand...
The fact that not everyone chooses to attack Marie, doesn't magically turn Trump's crimes into rainbows.

This is as stupid as claiming Trump's "assault" on the Press is fascistic and has a "chilling" effect.
Click to expand...
strawman.

BTW, was it, in your view, obstruction of justice when Obama opined publicly that Hillary didn't do anything criminal of damaging to national security by using her unsecured home server for official business while those actions were under a criminal investigation?
Click to expand...
With a what about Obama/Hillary cherry on top.

Brilliant arguments there Marcus.
 
MTAtech said:
I've seen several post with that narrative. I guess that's the current talking point on Trump TV Fox.

Yovanovitch was carrying out the crucial anti-corruption mission set out by the United States, not by Republicans, not by Democrats. Helping Ukraine's young new president uproot endemic corruption was a key part of an effort to help the country escape Russia's demand that it stay within Moscow's orbit. She explained that helping Ukraine free itself from Russian domination is crucial, partly because if Ukraine fails then Russia will seek to expand further.

That's why her story was not just inspiring but also dispiriting. An American hero, attacked by an American president -- removed from her post not because she failed to do her job but because she was doing it too well. As a result of Trump's actions, US policy went from supporting anti-corruption efforts to combating them. "Which country's interests are served when the very corrupt behavior we have been criticizing is allowed to prevail? Such conduct undermines the US, exposes our friends, and widens the playing field for autocrats like President Putin." Pelosi was right, in the Trump White House, all roads lead to Putin.
Click to expand...

George Kent said in his testimony yesterday, "You can't fight corruption without pissing off corrupt people." Kent said it was clear to him what Trump wanted: “nothing less than President Zelensky to go to microphone and say investigations, Biden, and Clinton.”

Kent testified that “our engagement with Ukraine shifted into, shall we say, unusual channels.”

He also expressed concern that there were “two snake pits” attacking Yovanovitch.

“My reference to the snake pits would have been in the context of having had our ambassador just removed through actions by corrupt Ukrainians in Ukraine as well as private American citizens back here,”

Marie Yovanovitch:

"I later served in Moscow. In 1993, during the attempted coup in Russia, I was caught in crossfire between presidential and parliamentary forces. It took us three tries—me without a helmet or body armor—to get into a vehicle to go to the Embassy. We went to the Embassy, because the Ambassador asked us to come. We went, because it was our duty.

My Service in Ukraine

From August 2016 until May 2019, I served as the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine. During my tenure in Ukraine, I went to the Front Line approximately ten times during a shooting war: to show the American flag, to hear what was going on (sometimes literally as we heard the impact of artillery), and to see how our assistance dollars were being put to use."

Marie Yovanovich saw more military action in Ukraine than Trump has seen his entire life. And you're right, it's gravely dispiriting for the majority of Americans who easily recognize a genuine patriot and know that we have one less loyalist working for the American people and democracy.
 
dobieg said:
Only an idiot would think a career do nothing diplomat who has over seen the status quo for the past 33 years would be involved in actually getting anything done.
Click to expand...
And only a clueless moron would characterise someone without knowing anything about her.
 
Trump said:
Getting FIRED for being sh*t at your job, is not reason to impeach a President... especially one whose catchphrase is 'You're fired!':lamo
Click to expand...



But Trump's failing to execute faithfully his oath of office, to such an extent that it poses a threat to national security, is an impeachable offense.
 
Fletch said:
What Trump did meets none of those standards. Plus, you have to consider the fact that she didnt even know about the Tweet until Schiff told her about it. The key here is that you guys need to stop trying to criminalize everything Trump says and does. Its why we dont take you guys seriously
Click to expand...


You guys need to stop dishing out strawman arguments everytime Trump is criticized.

We don't criminalize everything he says and does, we accuse him of a criminal act when it is a criminal act, we accuse him of an impeachable offense when it is an impeachable offense.

Nothing more, nothing less, noting that Trump's staff have been convicted of crimes more than any other president. What are the odds Trump is a criminal, as he seems to like surrounding himself around criminals?


 
Marcus1124 said:
First, these are not witnesses in a judicial proceeding (criminal or civil). They are witnesses in a political one proceeding. If these hearings were actual Article III court proceedings, most of the tesitmony would be disallowed as hearsay, and much of the criticism would actually be part of the strategy of any trial attorney of any competence, and not the stuff of "obstruction".

This is fundamentally no different than if someone accused a defense attorney of "obstruction" for going hard against a prosecution witness on cross.

Basically they democrats and their idiot lackeys want to criminalize or render impeachable the President's ability to do anything defending himself against politically motivated attacks.

In fact, they have even argued that the assertion of privilege is evidence of knowledge of guilt. Judges instruct juries every day that the invocation of a legal or constitutional right may NOT be assumed to indicate guilt. The assertion of a constitutional right or privilege cannot be used against someone.
Click to expand...


Just to be clear.....it is not a Constitutional right to collude with Ukrainian officials to dig up dirt on a political rivals son. Have you read the Transcript because the President asks that a lot but I question he has even read it himself. It doesn't take a legal genius to understand what was said in the transcript.
 
Roadvirus said:
Witness tampering? He said she sucked at her job. That's it.
Click to expand...

Witness intimidation is a more precise description, but witness tampering is inclusive of intimidation.


Trump's tweet disparages her while she is giving testimony and the tweet goes to 67 million followers.


It's more than reasonable to assert that Schiff would bring it to her attention as his tweets are monitored in real time.


This idea that "she wouldn't have found out if Schiff didn't tell her" is a bunk argument given that it is his duty to tell her as she is giving testimony regarding wrongdoing by the president.



Given that he is the most powerful person in the world and he is disparaging her WORLDWIDE while she is giving testimony as a witness, if that isn't witness intimidation, then what is?
 
Marcus1124 said:
As with so many other things, Democrats are making absurd legal arguments that they will only ever apply to Trump just to try and contrive crimes and/or impeachable offenses.

There was nothing even remotely threatening about his tweets. He insulted her, period. [...]
Click to expand...

It's amazing how cavalier the right is on this.


It's one thing to be insulted by your boss, but when your boss is the most powerful person in the world whose tweets go out to some 67 million followers world wide it can reasonably construed as intimidating.

What is absurd is your failure to grasp something so fundamental and obvious.
 
prometeus said:
What is that dismal record and what makes it so or you are just swallowing a big load of crap Trump is feeding you?
Click to expand...

When do you plan to learn something about Marie, or are you just swallowing the fawning comments the coup seekers are feeding you?
 
I hope Trump
Republicans here have town council members who act and tweet like Trump. It would be sweet justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom