Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 131

Thread: Freedom of speech or witness intimidation?

  1. #11
    Question authority
    Grand Mal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    on an island off the left coast of Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,354
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Freedom of speech or witness intimidation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Outlook View Post
    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.
    The intent was to intimidate others who will be testifying later, obviously.
    You call it truth to imply that Somalia's problems are the fault of the US ambassador?
    Better a sister in a whore-house than a brother in the Conservative Party.

  2. #12
    Sage 3leftsdoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:13 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,809

    Re: Freedom of speech or witness intimidation?

    Quote Originally Posted by independentusa View Post
    So him possibly intimidating a witness is just irrelevant nonsense as it is just Trump being Trump, even if it violates the law?
    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.
    Go Vote for Yang / Tulsi - Just Dang!

  3. #13
    Sage 3leftsdoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:13 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,809

    Re: Freedom of speech or witness intimidation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grand Mal View Post
    The intent was to intimidate others who will be testifying later, obviously.
    You call it truth to imply that Somalia's problems are the fault of the US ambassador?
    Complete nonsense.
    Go Vote for Yang / Tulsi - Just Dang!

  4. #14
    Question authority
    Grand Mal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    on an island off the left coast of Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,354
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Freedom of speech or witness intimidation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    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.
    Well, obviously the intent was to intimidate others who will be testifying.
    Sheesh.
    Better a sister in a whore-house than a brother in the Conservative Party.

  5. #15
    Sometimes wrong
    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    55,514

    Re: Freedom of speech or witness intimidation?

    Quote Originally Posted by independentusa View Post
    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?.
    Trump had no need to remind the public of why he had her replaced and it was politically extremely stupid for him to have done so, but doing so was not criminal in any way.

    The entire reason the demorats wanted this witness to absolutely nothing criminal at all was simply to draw attention to the fact that Trump *gasp* dared to replace a highly qualified woman with a man as US ambassador to Ukraine.

    It was a well calculated political ploy to try to further damage Trump with suburban women voters - plain and simple identity politics. The entire point of having her "testify" (despite her having no evidence of anything criminal) was to emphasize that the evil Trump had intentionally hurt the feelings of the female former ambassador to Ukraine.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  6. #16
    Sage 3leftsdoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:13 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,809

    Re: Freedom of speech or witness intimidation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grand Mal View Post
    Well, obviously the intent was to intimidate others who will be testifying.
    Sheesh.
    ^ ^Completely ridiculous.
    Go Vote for Yang / Tulsi - Just Dang!

  7. #17
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,257

    Re: Freedom of speech or witness intimidation?

    Quote Originally Posted by 3leftsdoo View Post
    Complete nonsense.
    Please read my message #7 above. I am not going to repeat myself. I am so glad though that you think you know more about the law than the lawyers on Fox News. Of course all trump cultists do not believe their eyes or ears as Trump told them, they only believe Trump and maybe Putin.

  8. #18
    Sage 3leftsdoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:13 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,809

    Re: Freedom of speech or witness intimidation?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Trump had no need to remind the public of why he had her replaced and it was politically extremely stupid for him to have done so, but doing so was not criminal in any way.

    The entire reason the demorats wanted this witness to absolutely nothing criminal at all was simply to draw attention to the fact that Trump *gasp* dared to replace a highly qualified woman with a man as US ambassador to Ukraine.

    It was a well calculated political ploy to try to further damage Trump with suburban women voters - plain and simple identity politics. The entire point of having her "testify" (despite her having no evidence of anything criminal) was to emphasize that the evil Trump had intentionally hurt the feelings of the female former ambassador to Ukraine.
    Some good points, but the Tweet was fine.
    Go Vote for Yang / Tulsi - Just Dang!

  9. #19
    Question authority
    Grand Mal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    on an island off the left coast of Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,354
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Freedom of speech or witness intimidation?

    Quote Originally Posted by 3leftsdoo View Post
    Complete nonsense.
    Ya figger? Okay, tell me, what was the intention? Why did Trump tweet that? He's watching the inquiry, he hears what she's saying, and he picks up his phone, logs on and types that because... why?
    Better a sister in a whore-house than a brother in the Conservative Party.

  10. #20
    Professor
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:01 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,501

    Re: Freedom of speech or witness intimidation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grand Mal View Post
    The intent was to intimidate others who will be testifying later, obviously.
    You call it truth to imply that Somalia's problems are the fault of the US ambassador?
    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

Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •