• 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:
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...

Witness tampering applies to congressional hearings which are also given under oath.
 
OscarLevant said:
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?
Click to expand...

What a load of convoluted crap.
 
ocean515 said:
What was Somalia like when Marie was posted there, and what was it like when she left? What did she accomplish?

How about Kyrgyzstan? The Tulip Revolution that occurred during her posting? The Constitutional crisis of 2007. What did she accomplish there?

How about Armenia? Do you even know when she was posted there?

Back her play, defend her record.

Try anything that proves you know a single thing about her, or taken the time, like I have, to inform yourself.
Click to expand...
You still can not answer the question. Your pathetic diversion does not change the fact that you are still only posting drivel.
 
Vern said:
wow, if you are that adamant its absurd to consider trumps tweets witness tampering, you must have been livid when your conservative masters claimed the tie President Clinton was wearing was a "librul plot". you were livid right?

Prosecutors asked Clinton Monday if he was trying to send a signal to the former White House intern by wearing the gold necktie at a Rose Garden event on handgun control.
During the questioning prosecutors reached into a pouch and pulled out a photograph of the tie the president was wearing the morning of Lewinsky's testimony.
Clinton Quizzed About Tie He Wore When Lewinsky Testified - Aug. 19, 1998

Wasn't Kavaugh one of those guys?
Click to expand...
I would have had the same response that Clinton had "I don't think it is anything that is being taken seriously around here" - you know, like Trump's tweets constituting "witness tampering."
 
Taylor said:
I would have had the same response that Clinton had "I don't think it is anything that is being taken seriously around here" - you know, like Trump's tweets constituting "witness tampering."
Click to expand...

Ok, lets pretend that your quote is accurate and in context, do you understand the difference between wondering if Trump was trying to intimidate a witness and conservative "prosecutors" pursing the "witness tampering" narrative?
 
Vern said:
Ok, lets pretend that your quote is accurate and in context, do you understand the difference between wondering if Trump was trying to intimidate a witness and conservative "prosecutors" pursing the "witness tampering" narrative?
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand that they are very different. In fact, I'm not sure why you brought the tie thing up at all.

Now, would you like to talk about witness tampering? Do you agree with me on that, or are you wrong?
 
Taylor said:
Yes, I understand that they are very different. In fact, I'm not sure why you brought the tie thing up at all.

Now, would you like to talk about witness tampering? Do you agree with me on that, or are you wrong?
Click to expand...

I figured you weren't following my clear straightforward point. You believe "that's not witness tampering" because your conservative masters told you its not. Its arguable either way. But if people calling what trump did witness tampering then actual prosecutors asking President Clinton about his tie choice must really make you angry. But of course you're not angry. You're pretending to not understand why I brought it up.

And just to be clear, a petty vindictive man-boy in a position of power who attack people's character at the drop of a hat, yea, I believe that's witness tampering. Oh and taylor, re-read the first paragraph as many times as necessary to understand my point.
 
Vern said:
I figured you weren't following my clear straightforward point. You believe "that's not witness tampering" because your conservative masters told you its not.
Click to expand...
No, I knew it wasn't "witness tampering" the very first time I heard someone made the claim and I took a quick look at the law.

Vern said:
But if people calling what trump did witness tampering then actual prosecutors asking President Clinton about his tie choice must really make you angry.
Click to expand...
Why? The two are wholly unrelated.

Vern said:
And just to be clear, a petty vindictive man-boy in a position of power who attack people's character at the drop of a hat, yea, I believe that's witness tampering.
Click to expand...
Why? Can you point to the section of the law that outlaws attacking a person's character?
 
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...

It was meant for other witnesses intending to testify
 
ClaraD said:
It was meant for other witnesses intending to testify
Click to expand...

Oh please. You guys have got to stop mindlessly repeating everything you hear on TV. There was nothing intimidating about that tweet. Nothing.
 
Fletch said:
Oh please. You guys have got to stop mindlessly repeating everything you hear on TV. There was nothing intimidating about that tweet. Nothing.
Click to expand...

everything I hear on tv? Exactly what did I hear on tv? I don't have cable and I rarely, if ever watch television. There absolutely was intimidation in that tweet...your boy should learn to keep his mouth shut and let the process go on...but he doesn't know how to do that.
 
MTAtech said:
You must have been watching cable news from an alternate universe. In this universe, she was poised, logical and passionate and made a strong case that the Trump Administration was siding with corrupt individuals in the Ukraine against those that were anti-corruption and made the case that since she was anti-corruption, she had to go.
Click to expand...

Schifty didn't get close to what he wanted out of that. Poised doesn't mean **** when you admit that Trump as President, can replace you at will. That was her whole story was that she was unfair thrown out. Too bad so sad, that's how it is. Obama dump ALL of his ambassadors. Where's your rage?
 
Taylor said:
Yes, I understand that they are very different. In fact, I'm not sure why you brought the tie thing up at all.

Now, would you like to talk about witness tampering? Do you agree with me on that, or are you wrong?
Click to expand...

Your asking leftist to use logic and reason. It isn't going to happen.

They are now the party of if I say it then it is true and as long as I feel it is true then it is.

I have asked too many of them to show either intimidation or something else and they can't.
 
ClaraD said:
everything I hear on tv? Exactly what did I hear on tv? I don't have cable and I rarely, if ever watch television. There absolutely was intimidation in that tweet...your boy should learn to keep his mouth shut and let the process go on...but he doesn't know how to do that.
Click to expand...

Well you picked up the liberal talking points somewhere. But tell me, where was the intimidation in that tweet?
 
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...

Her testimony.
Yovo was pretty clear about her opinion of Trump and her incredibly protective attitude towards her own position and her independence from her boss' foreign policy, that she's supposed to follow, as opposed to her own.

When she was confronted with a list of Uke officials who badmouthed Trump did she tell them to stop? Doesn't sound like it.
Did she disagree? She would have said if she did.
Did she agree? Who knows. She did deny she personally said anything negative although some claim she did.
And Zelensky thinks she didn't care for him as the new Uke President.
What she did do is dismiss those negative comments about Trump as no big deal in her testimony.
But they did show a residual animus toward Trump in Ukraine.
Like the one Trump inherited in his own administration that managed to hang around to form a series of conspiracies.
 
bubbabgone said:
Her testimony.
Yovo was pretty clear about her opinion of Trump and her incredibly protective attitude towards her own position and her independence from her boss' foreign policy, that she's supposed to follow, as opposed to her own.

When she was confronted with a list of Uke officials who badmouthed Trump did she tell them to stop? Doesn't sound like it.
Did she disagree? She would have said if she did.
Did she agree? Who knows. She did deny she personally said anything negative although some claim she did.
And Zelensky thinks she didn't care for him as the new Uke President.
What she did do is dismiss those negative comments about Trump as no big deal in her testimony.
But they did show a residual animus toward Trump in Ukraine.
Like the one Trump inherited in his own administration that managed to hang around to form a series of conspiracies.
Click to expand...
So all you have is speculation eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom