• 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'

Joe Biden is running for president and if he was to win in 2020, his Ukraine corruption allegation will be used against him, by the Republicans. The Democrats have set the precedent of the Ukraine stuff being such a big deal. Even third party hearsay is so important according to the Democrats. This grounds for impeachment.

It makes more sense to investigate Biden, before election, thereby saving the tax payer the agony of their leaders wasting time after a new president is elected. If Biden is innocent, let us get this over with, and have him be transparent. Why wait until after the 2020 election for another round of gossip games so nothing gets done, again?

The bottom line is the Democrats committed crimes in Ukraine, from corruption to using foreign nations to election tamper. This is why Trump was investigating. The Democrats have decided their best defense is a good offense. They accuse the other side; Trump, of doing the very things they did, with the hope that can confuse the issue.

They need to take out Trump, and win the presidency, so they can cover up, and make their crimes go away. Anything short of this means doom for the Democrats. This is why they are breaking all the rules of fairness and due process and why Trump is taking away their thunder with his Tweets. Trump's tweet becomes the news, and the so called latest bomb shell becomes a little fire cracker.
 
President of the United States of America Donald Trump has many 'freedoms'. That doesn't automatically guarantee that they should be exercised. The prudent person, given freedoms, knows when and where they are appropriate.
 
ocean515 said:
When do you plan to learn something about Marie, or are you just swallowing the fawning comments the coup seekers are feeding you?
Click to expand...
Your uninformed bull crap is just that. You made a moronic assertion, which obviously you can not support but have to resort to deflection. Be careful not to choke...
 
prometeus said:
Your uninformed bull crap is just that. You made a moronic assertion, which obviously you can not support but have to resort to deflection. Be careful not to choke...
Click to expand...

I can support anything you want. Do you have a clue about Marie's posting background?

Kyrgyzstan? Somalia?

Do you know anything?

Did you read a word of the transcript of her deposition she gave in Schiff's bunker?

Come on, step up. What do you want to debate. Show me you know something about Marie that didn't come from your favorite left wing websites.
 
prometeus said:
So you can not and was just blowiating. Color me surprised.
Click to expand...

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.
 
wellwisher said:
Joe Biden is running for president and if he was to win in 2020, his Ukraine corruption allegation will be used against him, by the Republicans. The Democrats have set the precedent of the Ukraine stuff being such a big deal. Even third party hearsay is so important according to the Democrats. This grounds for impeachment.

It makes more sense to investigate Biden, before election, thereby saving the tax payer the agony of their leaders wasting time after a new president is elected. If Biden is innocent, let us get this over with, and have him be transparent. Why wait until after the 2020 election for another round of gossip games so nothing gets done, again?

The bottom line is the Democrats committed crimes in Ukraine, from corruption to using foreign nations to election tamper. This is why Trump was investigating. The Democrats have decided their best defense is a good offense. They accuse the other side; Trump, of doing the very things they did, with the hope that can confuse the issue.

They need to take out Trump, and win the presidency, so they can cover up, and make their crimes go away. Anything short of this means doom for the Democrats. This is why they are breaking all the rules of fairness and due process and why Trump is taking away their thunder with his Tweets. Trump's tweet becomes the news, and the so called latest bomb shell becomes a little fire cracker.
Click to expand...
Trump isn't investigating anything. Nobody sends their personal lawyer to investigate U.S. private citizens. Thinking that Trump really cared about corruption and it was merely a coincidence that the singular focus of this corruption was Biden, is either naive or dishonest.

What you are cynically saying is that Trump and Giuliani manufactured a false innuendo narrative against Biden so he has something equal to the "crooked Hillary" narrative. For the record, Hillary wasn't crooked, while Trump is crooked.

Trump wanted Zelensky to state on CNN that he was starting an investigation. That's all Trump really needed: then he could have tarred Biden as corrupt for the next 18 months, because Biden would've been "under investigation." And all this happened within the last several months. There wouldn't have been time to write a report before Trump's own behavior was exposed by the whistleblower.

Trump was attempting two objectives: 1) pre-emptive attack on Biden; 2) corrupt the Ukraine to steal the energy. Federal prosecutors investigating Giuliani's gas industry links in Ukraine: report | TheHill

Once again, we have this as an example, among many examples, of Trump putting his own personal interests above that of the nation. That's why there is an impeachment inquiry.
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
The fact that not everyone chooses to attack Marie, doesn't magically turn Trump's crimes into rainbows.


strawman.


With a what about Obama/Hillary cherry on top.

Brilliant arguments there Marcus.
Click to expand...

Clearly you don't understand a damn thing about law or legal theory. One of the most fundamental, basic tests of the rationality of an interpretation of a law is whether or not the consistent application of that interpretation will yield clearly idiotic results.

You also demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of either basic logical fallacies or current events, because a "strawman" is when someone puts up an argument that nobody on the other side is actually making, because it is easily shot down, thus creating a false impression that the other side is making ridiculous arguments. The argument that Trump's "assault" or "attacks" on the media are totalitarian in nature and have a "chilling" effect (does that argument sound familiar - attacks = chilling) is actually been made by Trump's opponents, and the fact that nobody can actually identify members of the media who have become one iota less vociferous in their coverage of him shows that it is a ridiculous argument. Therefore, not a strawman.

In other words, the fact that it goes on every single day in ever court house in the country (or as you say, "everyone" else does it) means it is NOT a crime by any even remotely rational interpretation of the applicable laws. In fact, the real disingenuousness throughout the Trump presidency is the effort to deem "crimes" things routinely done by every other President and/or politician merely because it is Trump.

So, I will ask you again, was it obstruction of justice for Obama to opine publicly as President dismissing the notion that Hillary did anything criminal while a criminal investigation was underway?
 
goldkam said:
Just to be clear.....it is not a Constitutional right to collude with Ukrainian officials to dig up dirt on a political rivals son. Have you read the Transcript because the President asks that a lot but I question he has even read it himself. It doesn't take a legal genius to understand what was said in the transcript.
Click to expand...

Not specifically, but negotiating with foreign governments is an inherent constitutional power of the President. There is NOTHING illegal about asking his counterparts to look into allegations of corruption (or the appearance thereof) on the part of current, former, or potentially future federal officials. Running for President does not create a legal shield from legal scrutiny for the candidate or their children on the part of sitting administrations (just ask Trump).

There was nothing illegal here. Just as there was nothing illegal when Obama expressed a willingness to be more flexible with Russia after the 2012 election if Putin would not do anything to hurt Obama's chances. That is not to say that neither Trump or Obama's actions were clearly subject to political scrutiny (that is what politics is about), but neither were criminal, and frankly neither rose to the level of impeachable offenses.

Hell, I am still waiting for a single democrat to come out and condemn Teddy Kennedy postumously for what was unambiguous and proven efforts to engage the Soviet government (an far more significant adversary globally at the time) to interfere in the 1984 elections.

I also don't recall any democrats (or Republicans for that matter given that they are far less inclined to make abjectly stupid legal arguments just to get a political opponent) reffering to China's proven efforts to influence and "interfere" with the 1996 elections as an "act of war" against us.

Face it, Trump's "crime" is that he made almost every member of the establishment (on both sides of the aisle, and in the media) look like the out of touch fools they are by actually winning an election that they all smugly said it was impossible for him to win, and then to actually govern largely as he said he would in the campaign. Some democrat in the house made a huge gaff when he admitted that he supported impeachment because if they don't do it, Trump will probably win reelection. That is a truly damning statement...about them.
 
Yovanovitch got her ass handed to her.

Sent from Hillary's private email server.
 
Marcus1124 said:
Not specifically, but negotiating with foreign governments is an inherent constitutional power of the President. There is NOTHING illegal about asking his counterparts to look into allegations of corruption (or the appearance thereof) on the part of current, former, or potentially future federal officials. Running for President does not create a legal shield from legal scrutiny for the candidate or their children on the part of sitting administrations (just ask Trump).

There was nothing illegal here. Just as there was nothing illegal when Obama expressed a willingness to be more flexible with Russia after the 2012 election if Putin would not do anything to hurt Obama's chances. That is not to say that neither Trump or Obama's actions were clearly subject to political scrutiny (that is what politics is about), but neither were criminal, and frankly neither rose to the level of impeachable offenses.

Hell, I am still waiting for a single democrat to come out and condemn Teddy Kennedy postumously for what was unambiguous and proven efforts to engage the Soviet government (an far more significant adversary globally at the time) to interfere in the 1984 elections.

I also don't recall any democrats (or Republicans for that matter given that they are far less inclined to make abjectly stupid legal arguments just to get a political opponent) reffering to China's proven efforts to influence and "interfere" with the 1996 elections as an "act of war" against us.

Face it, Trump's "crime" is that he made almost every member of the establishment (on both sides of the aisle, and in the media) look like the out of touch fools they are by actually winning an election that they all smugly said it was impossible for him to win, and then to actually govern largely as he said he would in the campaign. Some democrat in the house made a huge gaff when he admitted that he supported impeachment because if they don't do it, Trump will probably win reelection. That is a truly damning statement...about them.
Click to expand...

A load of BS. It is not "negotiating with foreign governments" to strong-arm a foreign leader to investigate someone who just happens to be a likely political opponent in the 2020.

Your Ted Kennedy assertion? More BS. Fox News host cites Ted Kennedy-KGB meeting that never happened | PunditFact

Trump's crimes are many, including bribery and extortion, and actions that he took that weren't crimes, such as abuse of power and his office, are equally impeachable.
 
American said:
Yovanovitch got her ass handed to her.

Sent from Hillary's private email server.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Marcus1124 said:
Not specifically, but negotiating with foreign governments is an inherent constitutional power of the President. There is NOTHING illegal about asking his counterparts to look into allegations of corruption (or the appearance thereof) on the part of current, former, or potentially future federal officials. Running for President does not create a legal shield from legal scrutiny for the candidate or their children on the part of sitting administrations (just ask Trump).

There was nothing illegal here. Just as there was nothing illegal when Obama expressed a willingness to be more flexible with Russia after the 2012 election if Putin would not do anything to hurt Obama's chances. That is not to say that neither Trump or Obama's actions were clearly subject to political scrutiny (that is what politics is about), but neither were criminal, and frankly neither rose to the level of impeachable offenses.

Hell, I am still waiting for a single democrat to come out and condemn Teddy Kennedy postumously for what was unambiguous and proven efforts to engage the Soviet government (an far more significant adversary globally at the time) to interfere in the 1984 elections.

I also don't recall any democrats (or Republicans for that matter given that they are far less inclined to make abjectly stupid legal arguments just to get a political opponent) reffering to China's proven efforts to influence and "interfere" with the 1996 elections as an "act of war" against us.

Face it, Trump's "crime" is that he made almost every member of the establishment (on both sides of the aisle, and in the media) look like the out of touch fools they are by actually winning an election that they all smugly said it was impossible for him to win, and then to actually govern largely as he said he would in the campaign. Some democrat in the house made a huge gaff when he admitted that he supported impeachment because if they don't do it, Trump will probably win reelection. That is a truly damning statement...about them.
Click to expand...


Have you read the transcript?

Firstly- He did not negotiate he asked for a 'favour' and directly told the President of Ukraine what to do. That is directly in the transcript.

Second- The Constitution was set in a way to create accountability in respect to the President that is they should not obtain a private benefit when it is in public interest. Trump withheld $400million in aid money to Ukraine (whether this was a bargaining chip is important but also beside the point) with no explanation as to why.

Third- If you claim there is nothing illegal I would ask you to answer this. Joe Biden's running for President is of significant public interest and the allegations of his sons conduct is of public importance particularly when it comes to Biden's potential election as the leader of the US. That is of PUBLIC INTEREST.....so why was Trump not transparent or willing to even tell the public about a Ukrainian investigation on this matter of PUBLIC INTEREST. If the transcript was not released we would have no idea about this matter. If he has nothing to hide he would have been much more transparent.
 
Free Speech ?? What the fat stupid orange pig does not understand is the concept of yelling fire in a theater. Tragically, he is a pampered little spoiled brat and a traitor.
 
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...

What did she say that makes you think this?
 
nota bene said:
What did she say that makes you think this?
Click to expand...

READ: Marie Yovanovitch's opening remarks at public impeachment hearing (CNN). Is it too much to ask?
Individuals, who apparently felt stymied by our efforts to promote stated U.S. policy against
corruption—that is, to do the mission—were able to successfully conduct a campaign of disinformation against a sitting Ambassador, using unofficial back channels. As various witnesses have recounted, they shared baseless allegations with the President and convinced him to remove his Ambassador, despite the fact that the State Department fully understood that the allegations were false and the sources highly suspect. These events should concern everyone in this room.
Click to expand...
But, apparently, not everyone on this board.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
Witness tampering? :lamo
Click to expand...

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?
 
JacksinPA said:
Trump defends Yovanovitch attack: 'I have freedom of speech' | TheHill

President Trump on Friday defended his tweet earlier in the day attacking former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch in the middle of her public testimony in the House impeachment hearing, insisting he has the right to speak out.

"I have the right to speak. I have freedom of speech just like other people do," Trump told reporters at the White House after making remarks on a health care initiative, adding that he's "allowed to speak up" if others are speaking about him.
==================================
Pressed on whether his words can be intimidating, as Yovanovitch and Democrats have said, Trump said no. He stated that he had 'freedom of speech' even if his speech is totally inappropriate given the circumstances.
Click to expand...

“..........and Article II!”
 
Marcus1124 said:
Not specifically, but negotiating with foreign governments is an inherent constitutional power of the President.
Click to expand...
Here's the inherent flaw in this assertion: Trump wasn't negotiating on behalf of the United States, but on his own behalf. That is the reason he referred Zelensky to his personal attorneys, and not to the United States' representative in Ukraine. If one cannot discern the difference, one will never understand the basis for the impeachment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom