• 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!

Freedom of speech or witness intimidation?

independentusa said:
Witness intimidation does not just apply to the one presently giving testimony, but future witnesses in the same case. In intimidating one witness, even if the person does not know it until after the witness has testified at this level, this same witness will be called again if there is a trial on the Senate. And other witnesses are shown what they are in for if they testify. So your argument that she did not know until Schiff told her does not matter as she would have found out eventually and the effect on other witnesses is not effected by when trump tweeted.
Click to expand...

Well people can say or think whatever they want.

I say it was Trump mouthing off (albeit IMO unnecessarily), and if you hate him you'll see it one way, if you like him another, and if you are on the fence it might sway you one way or the other.

I doubt that any "witnesses" willing to testify against Trump would be overly concerned since any action he might actually take would only serve to make them martyrs and thereby guarantee support and aid from Trump opponents.
 
rjay said:
Stop it

If witness intimidation happened, it had nothing to do with the witness on the stand. That witness was beyond the reach of any Trump tweets.

The intimidation, if it existed, was to do with future witnesses. Please use your head when trying to analyze this.

In my thoughtful opinion, although ill advised, this tweet did not reach the level of witness intimidation.

However, it does appear to me that Trump was intimidated by this witness.
Click to expand...

You say it was not to intimidate the witness on the stand, but IT WAS. This same witness will be called before the Senate if the president is impeached. It also had an added effect to intimidate other possible witnesses. I would call this a two for.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I do not approve of what Trump said, and IMO he really should not have made such statements.

However, the Tweets apparently occurred while she was giving testimony, and she was totally unaware of them...right up until Mr. Schiff took the time to make her aware.




So whatever Trump's motives, it would appear that Ms. Yovanovitch would not have been affected while giving her testimony absent Schiff's action to inform her.
Click to expand...


LOL That's your spin? You do know there are more witnesses subpoenaed who will be testifying. What about how that is tampering with them? Stone just got convicted of witness tampering and it has a jail time of up to 20 years.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Well people can say or think whatever they want.

I say it was Trump mouthing off (albeit IMO unnecessarily), and if you hate him you'll see it one way, if you like him another, and if you are on the fence it might sway you one way or the other.

I doubt that any "witnesses" willing to testify against Trump would be overly concerned since any action he might actually take would only serve to make them martyrs and thereby guarantee support and aid from Trump opponents.
Click to expand...

You have the right to your opinion and I joined the military to give you that right. The problem is when the lawyers from Fox News say it was witness intimidation, even the far right should be listening. I think at this stage people who support trump will do so no matter what he does and polls bear that out. I even read one poll that said 62% of trump supporters will support him no matter what.
 
independentusa said:
So anything bad Trump does is just him being Trump and you are okay with it? Now that really sounds like something a Trump cultist might write. I guess you would be okay with him shooting someone on 5th Avenue since that is just Trump being Trump?
Click to expand...

We're being moved away from a Republic to a "let Trump be Trump" form of government. Before he's done he'll have the Trumplegangers believing we have at least one branch too many.
 
3leftsdoo said:
Okay - you're serious.

Why?

Because that's what he does.

No harm, no foul.
Click to expand...

You're not listening. I said Trump is trying to intimidate witnesses in this proceeding. I said that's why he tweeted bull**** about someone who was just peripherally involved in a slightly negative role. That's not 'no harm, no foul'. That's obviously intended harm and that's the pumpkin-headed buffoon digging himself in deeper. If anyone in the White House has Trump's interests at heart they better find a way to shut him up, and quickly.
Maybe the Repubs are starting to see a route to President Pence.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Well people can say or think whatever they want.

I say it was Trump mouthing off (albeit IMO unnecessarily), and if you hate him you'll see it one way, if you like him another, and if you are on the fence it might sway you one way or the other.

I doubt that any "witnesses" willing to testify against Trump would be overly concerned since any action he might actually take would only serve to make them martyrs and thereby guarantee support and aid from Trump opponents.
Click to expand...

Is It 2006 or 4 or 2000? | National Review
This shows how vindictive Trump can be if he sees you as not being loyal only to him. This is the IG who investigated the Whistleblower's report and found it to be true and needing urgent action.
 
independentusa said:
You say it was not to intimidate the witness on the stand, but IT WAS. This same witness will be called before the Senate if the president is impeached. It also had an added effect to intimidate other possible witnesses. I would call this a two for.
Click to expand...

All I can do is disagree with your analysis. Not entirely disagree, I agree with the part where you agreed with me :)
 
Outlook said:
Obviously the intent was to intimidate others. LOL

Of course the jack asses never intimidate Barr or anyone else.

Do you imply that every problem in the world is Trump’s fault.

One word. Hypocrite
Click to expand...
:lamo

This "president" fires off a tweet that is likely witness intimidation and you play the "stop blaming Trump" card for something that Trump himself did.

Your president is a crook. :)
 
Outlook said:
How is texting the truth intimidation?
The Trump haters saw it as intimidation even though she wasn’t aware of it until Schiff read it.
Click to expand...

It was pathetic, but yet not surprising that he'd pull such a low level stunt. It also could be seen as intimidation for anyone else coming up to testify. With that said, let him tweet away to his hearts content. It wasn't received too well by people on his own side.
 
Phys251 said:
:lamo

This "president" fires off a tweet that is likely witness intimidation and you play the "stop blaming Trump" card for something that Trump himself did.

Your president is a crook. :)
Click to expand...

That as yet has not been proven and the Jack asses once again are doing a poor job at their attempts.
You call Trump all these names, why? Because you hate his attitude, his demeanor, because he beat your candidate. OMG
 
Phys251 said:
Freedom of speech and witness intimidation are mutually exclusive things. If Donald was attempting to alter or prevent Yovanovitch's testimony, that is by definition witness intimidation and yet another impeachable offense.
Click to expand...

Or if it was a message to any other witnesses of what they can expect if they cross the Donald... also witness intimidation. Trump should chat with Roger Stone about that, since Stone now has a witness tampering conviction and is an expert!
 
independentusa said:
You have the right to your opinion and I joined the military to give you that right. The problem is when the lawyers from Fox News say it was witness intimidation, even the far right should be listening. I think at this stage people who support trump will do so no matter what he does and polls bear that out. I even read one poll that said 62% of trump supporters will support him no matter what.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are plenty of undecided votes out there and stuff like this probably doesn't strike them as being anything but a man who can't control himself and is easily intimidated. His base isn't going to carry him to a win, so if he doesn't want to pull his head out of his *** such is life. I wonder how long before he starts screaming "it's all rigged!!" :lol:
 
Outlook said:
How is texting the truth intimidation?
The Trump haters saw it as intimidation even though she wasn’t aware of it until Schiff read it.
Click to expand...

It wasn't the truth.

And whether it's intimidation or not, it showed Trump's character, which is a small minded, insecure, stupid, narcissistic bully who just can't help himself. He disgraces the office every day he remains in it.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I do not approve of what Trump said, and IMO he really should not have made such statements.

However, the Tweets apparently occurred while she was giving testimony, and she was totally unaware of them...right up until Mr. Schiff took the time to make her aware.

So whatever Trump's motives, it would appear that Ms. Yovanovitch would not have been affected while giving her testimony absent Schiff's action to inform her.
Click to expand...

Obviously, affecting her testimony isn't necessarily the point or the only point. He's always sending the message to anyone that if they aren't on his team, aren't sufficiently loyal, they will face the President of the United States using lies to smear them to the entire world. That's a serious threat, and what Yovanovitch did to deserve it was serve the country with honor for over 30 years, and appear in front of Congress under subpoena and tell the truth as she knows it.

It's disgraceful.
 
3leftsdoo said:
She's witnessed nothing, it isn't a trial, there was no intimidation, and she wasn't aware of the mild comments.

No law violated.
Click to expand...

If you're too lazy to watch or read about her testimony, don't make assertions about it. What she witnessed and testified to was Trump's personal attorney and others working with him engage in a disinformation campaign, based on lies, to ruin her reputation and get her removed from her post. Trump could have just fired her, obviously, so why Rudy thought it was necessary to smear her in the process is a mystery, but it's an abuse of power, independent of the QPQ.
 
independentusa said:
During Yovanovitch's testimony today Trump tweeted out what was negative statements about her. When confronted with the fact that this could be seen as witness intimidation, Trump stated he had the right to do so as he had freedom of speech like any other American. Now I do not know much about the law, but lawyer's on both Fox News and MSNBC seemed to think that it was witness intimidation. One lawyer on Fox News said it could be considered either witness tampering or intimidation, but did not think it rose to the level of impeachment. Others on Fox News did not say anything about whether it was impeachable, but that it was not a smart thing to do. The lawyers on MSNBC seemed to think it was terrible and thought that it might be part of the impeachment process. All seemed to think it was some form of witness intimidation, but questioned how serious it was. So, what do you think. Can a President under the guise of freedom of speech say anything he wants and this should be covered under freedom of speech or is there a limit and this was witness intimidation?.
Click to expand...

This does not reach the qualifications for intimidation. Much like the last half dozen times we watched the democrats try to pull this same stupidity before.
 
independentusa said:
During Yovanovitch's testimony today Trump tweeted out what was negative statements about her. When confronted with the fact that this could be seen as witness intimidation, Trump stated he had the right to do so as he had freedom of speech like any other American. Now I do not know much about the law, but lawyer's on both Fox News and MSNBC seemed to think that it was witness intimidation. One lawyer on Fox News said it could be considered either witness tampering or intimidation, but did not think it rose to the level of impeachment. Others on Fox News did not say anything about whether it was impeachable, but that it was not a smart thing to do. The lawyers on MSNBC seemed to think it was terrible and thought that it might be part of the impeachment process. All seemed to think it was some form of witness intimidation, but questioned how serious it was. So, what do you think. Can a President under the guise of freedom of speech say anything he wants and this should be covered under freedom of speech or is there a limit and this was witness intimidation?.
Click to expand...

Did Trump use his position in any way to threaten her?

She was jilted.

She wants revenge.

The perfect lackey for Schiff.
 
Another day, another Nothing Burger source of liberal outrage...

:shrug:
 
independentusa said:
During Yovanovitch's testimony today Trump tweeted out what was negative statements about her. When confronted with the fact that this could be seen as witness intimidation, Trump stated he had the right to do so as he had freedom of speech like any other American. Now I do not know much about the law, but lawyer's on both Fox News and MSNBC seemed to think that it was witness intimidation. One lawyer on Fox News said it could be considered either witness tampering or intimidation, but did not think it rose to the level of impeachment. Others on Fox News did not say anything about whether it was impeachable, but that it was not a smart thing to do. The lawyers on MSNBC seemed to think it was terrible and thought that it might be part of the impeachment process. All seemed to think it was some form of witness intimidation, but questioned how serious it was. So, what do you think. Can a President under the guise of freedom of speech say anything he wants and this should be covered under freedom of speech or is there a limit and this was witness intimidation?.
Click to expand...

I covered this in a previous post:


There is some debate as to whether or not the Trump tweet constitutes the crime of witness intimidation. However, Yovanovitch did say she felt intimidated by the tweet.

Some argue that she wouldn't have know had not Schiff brought it to her attention. However, the counter to that is that a tweet of disparagement about anyone coming from the president bears the full weight and power of the presidency and there is a more than reasonable expectation that that tweet during that testimony would be immediately made known to her for obvious reasons. Therefore, the "but for" argument is rather meaningless.

Therefore, in my view, despite arguments to the contrary, Trump committed the crime of witness intimidation because:

1. She said she was intimidated by the tweet
2. Given that it's coming from the president while she was bearing witness, given the more than reasonable expectation she would be made aware of it,
it is therefore witness intimidation.

That being said, I am no legal expert, not a lawyer, and though I could be wrong, I like this particular point of view:

Diane Marie Amann, law professor, University of Georgia
Impeachment is a legal process, in that the US Constitution provides for charging of “high crimes or misdemeanors” by the House, followed by trial in the Senate. Impeachment is not a federal criminal proceeding, however.

For this reason, evaluation of the president’s statements — in tweets, in phone conversations, at press gaggles, and the like — should turn not on whether the precise elements of a federal crime like witness tampering have been met, but rather on whether the statements constitute, or contribute to, abuses of the public trust that justify the president’s impeachment and removal from office.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Outlook said:
How is texting the truth intimidation?
The Trump haters saw it as intimidation even though she wasn’t aware of it until Schiff read it.
Click to expand...



1. She felt intimidated by the tweet

2. A disparaging remark coming from the president bears the full weight and power of the presidency, and being intimidated is a fair characterization

3. A tweet of disparagement directed to someone bearing witness, because it is coming from the president during the time she is bearing witness, there is more than a reasonable expectation such would be brought to her attention, noting that Trump has over 60 million followers and is the most powerful person in the world.


Ad hominems ("Trump haters") do not support any argument, but do more to diminish your credibility than anything.


Ad hominems arise from emotion, but emotion is not an argument, it's a kind of venting, blowing steam.


If you are serious about the art of debate, you should stick to facts, paths of logic and reason, and nothing else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom