• 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

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,303
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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?.
 
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?.

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.
 
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?.

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.
 
Last edited:
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?.

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.
 
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.

What Trump did was just Trump, but some good points.
 
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.

That's your excuse this time, CA? The amount of time it takes for Donald's hostile tweet to make it's way to Yovanovitch??

"Your Honor, I didn't intimidate the witness in that trial, because by the time she knew about my threat of violence against her, she was already off the witness stand." :lol:
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
What Trump did was just Trump, but some good points.

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?
 
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?

Nope - his pardons and sanctions are deeply wrong for instance. Irrelevant nonsense. Ditto.
 
Nope - his pardons and sanctions are deeply wrong for instance. Irrelevant nonsense. Ditto.

So him possibly intimidating a witness is just irrelevant nonsense as it is just Trump being Trump, even if it violates the law?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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.

^ ^Silliness.

And you seem to have me confused with a "Trump cultist."

Whatever sort of anti-unicorn that is.
 
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?

Okay - you're serious.

Why?

Because that's what he does.

No harm, no foul.
 
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.

Apparently the lawyers I watched on Fox News thought differently. They all said it was witness intimidation, although one said it might be witness tampering instead. Again, trump told his supporters not to believe what they saw or heard, but only listen to him, and he says it was freedom of speech so that must be what true believers believe.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom