• 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!

President ****bag Criming in Real Time During Yovanovitch's Testimony

Irwin Corey said:
A crime does not need to have been committed to impeach him.



But, that article goes on describe the "Hobbs Act" and how, in fact, tRump violated it.
Click to expand...

That isn't what The Constitution says.
 
apdst said:
What does that have to do with Trump? Oh, wait, nothing...:lamo
Click to expand...

What do the little squiggly lines called words say? Oh yeah "Trump associate" :doh
 
calamity said:
Just like there was "no collusion. Amirite? :roll:

TO bad a jury of twelve aid there was today. :lamo
Click to expand...

There was no "collusion". Mueller proved that. Hell, collusion ain't even a crime. :lamo
 
apdst said:
There was no "collusion". Mueller proved that. Hell, collusion ain't even a crime. :lamo
Click to expand...

Stine was convicted of lying about collusion. I guess there was collusion and a crime.

You're Oh fer two.
 
calamity said:
Stine was convicted of lying about collusion. I guess there was collusion and a crime.

You're Oh fer two.
Click to expand...

Who's "Stine"? :lamo

Was Stone convicted of "collusion"?
 
digitusmedius said:
Yep. Witness intimidation in any form is a crime.
Click to expand...

We're gonna have to teach Christians from the Party of God what's criminal and even honorable.

It's like they're enjoying supporting some corrupt Islamic Cleric (who isn't religious at all) .
 
apdst said:
That isn't what The Constitution says.
Click to expand...

from Federalist No.65, Alexander Hamilton wrote that impeachable offenses "are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political as they related chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." The involve "the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."
Click to expand...

IF, tRump, as HIS transcript indicates, held up public funds or property for HIS personal gain then he AbsaByGodLutely abused AND violated the public trust.
 
digitusmedius said:
So, ****bag launches a smear tweet against a witness WHILE SHE's TESTIFYING. He can't stop committing crimes even as his old crimes are revealed.
Click to expand...

Democrats = Desperately grasping at nothing

Also, classy.

Super classy.

:thumbs:
 
CaughtInThe said:
We're gonna have to teach Christians from the Party of God what's criminal and even honorable.

It's like they're enjoying supporting some corrupt Islamic Cleric (who isn't religious at all) .
Click to expand...

The sad thing is that it seems that their christianity is the reason they aren't acting in a moral or ethical manner.
 
tacomancer said:
The sad thing is that it seems that their christianity is the reason they aren't acting in a moral or ethical manner.
Click to expand...

Many of the ones around me use their Religion to segregate.

Just as Jesus taught us.
 
tacomancer said:
The sad thing is that it seems that their christianity is the reason they aren't acting in a moral or ethical manner.
Click to expand...

Yep. Trump has exposed American Evangelical Christians for what they really are. Look what Trump uses to energize them:

Trump’s Midterm Closing Argument: Pure Racial Fear


Empowerment-When-People-Show-You-Who-They-Are-Believe-Them.jpg
 
apdst said:
There was no threat in Trump's tweet. It's funny as **** to watch you all lose your minds...lol
Click to expand...

I never suggested there was a threat, and there doesn't have to be one. If it's possible for you to read more than three lines perhaps you might scroll down the link and learn something. The clue is in the word 'influence'.
 
Last edited:
Fledermaus said:
Please detail what "witness intimidation" you imagine to have happened.
Click to expand...

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...
 
OscarLevant said:
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:
Click to expand...

Well said. :thumbs:
 
ludin said:
there is huge leeway and public officials are pretty much immune from such things.
you actually have to tweet something that is actually violate or 100% false and know that it
is 100% false.
Click to expand...

No, that's not true. Even if it's true, you can be sued for causing damages to somebody by saying something online that causes financial [or personal] harm to that individual if the claim was made "with malice." There was a case of it happening in Minnesota. A well known blog that published details about crimes and where those criminals lived lost a defamation lawsuit. While it's generally true that saying something true is a solid defense against defamation suits, what makes your statement unquestionably incorrect is the phrasing "100% false." 1% false or the insertion of opinion with intended malice will leave you wide open for litigation.

And Ben Shapiro is a complete moron. Even Joe Rogan can own that idiot with logic, which occurs as often as Alex Jones saying something that is true.
 
The Trump tweet aimed at Voyanovitch is yet more proof (as if we needed any) that Fat Donald has no idea where he is or what he is doing. He only sees the power of the Presidency as a tool for his pleasure and his personal gain and does not even acknowledge the great burden of responsibility the actual position represents.

Put Donny Boy back in his Manhattan Golden Throne doing his stuff and have him tweet out the same thing as Donald Business Boy. Who would give a rats behind? Nobody, thats so. He is just a loud mouth clueless bully business boy and nobody cares at that point.

Take that same tweet and make the source the President of the United States aimed toward a career Foreign Service Officer and you are darned right its intimidating.

Fat Donald has never ever understood the difference between Donny Business Boy running for President and the actual Chief Executive of the United States.

Not to mention, Fat Donald destroyed the entire Repug side of the panel's plans to defend him on Friday. Once that tweet came out, they were stuck defending her! That is what they ended up doing with virtually the entire rest of their day. Smooth DonDon, real smooth. You just keep those tweets coming IDIOT!

In one single tweet, DonDon elevated her credibility and her importance. The entire task for the GOP side of the panel was to mitigate her credibility and deflate her importance and DonDon blew that plan up before it ever got off the ground. Like I said, smooth DonDon. You ARE brilliant after all......NOT!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
digitusmedius said:
So, ****bag launches a smear tweet against a witness WHILE SHE's TESTIFYING. He can't stop committing crimes even as his old crimes are revealed.
Click to expand...

LOL

She should have been escorted out of the room on her second "NO" answer.

"Pencil neck" put her up there to tug at the emotional heart strings of hysterical liberals.

It seemed to have worked judging by seeing the usual hacks commenting on this thread.
 
apdst said:
We're talking about collusion. Try to keep up, please.
Click to expand...

Yes, collusion

Roger Stone guilty on all counts of lying to Congress, witness tampering


Stone’s indictment was the last brought by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, revealing important details about the Trump campaign’s keen interest in computer files hacked by Russia and made public by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks. He was accused of lying to Congress and tampering with a witness, an associate whom prosecutors said Stone threatened in an attempt to prevent the man from cooperating with lawmakers.

Stone joins a long line of Trump advisers and confidants who have either been convicted or pleaded guilty in connection with the special counsel probe, including former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, former deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen and former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.
Click to expand...

Though, I'd probably just refer to it as a criminal conspiracy committed by the Trump Crime Organization.
 
Fledermaus said:
Please detail what "witness intimidation" you imagine to have happened.
Click to expand...

The most powerful man in the world smearing you in real time while you testify against him. Yeah, that would be intimidating to most people. And more likely it was a message to anyone else who dares speak out.
Easy way to see that team trump knows crossed the line is that he stopped tweeting the rest of the day. His nannies must have taken his phone away....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom