• 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'

3leftsdoo said:
But you agree that no president should have free speech, at least not when it embarrasses the Democrats!

:donkeyfla
Click to expand...
Trump is an embarrassment to look at, too. With his piggy little mouth and his beady little raccoon eyes, and his goofy hair, orange skin, little hands, and his clown ties, baggy tacky suits to hide his fat ass.....he's an embarrassment to the whole country.



The first amendment protects the public's free political speech from the government...and Trump represents the government. So no, I don't think any president should have free political speech except when they're campaigning and not on the tax payers dime.
 
apdst said:
There was no threat. Y'all are embarressing yourselves. :lamo
Click to expand...

You know what is really embarrassing and just downright pathetic, continuing to defend Trump. Have you no shame?
 
What a PR disaster for the GOP. They must get tired of flushing the turds Trump keeps popping out of his twitter account. Well played Schiff, after all these years the Dems are finally fighting just as dirty as the Republicans, long overdue!!
 
Oborosen said:
It's funny how his tweet did not fall into either of those qualifiers, and yet these "experts" believe that it's an impeachable offense...?

Yeah, I believe those that work at Vox. Should probably not quite their day jobs.
Click to expand...
Whether Tweeting this insult to the former Ambassador while she was testifying is impeachable or not, can't you at least admit it shows the worst parts of 45's character -- reckless, uncivil, boorish, crude, disrespectful, unthinking and lack of self-control and restraint?
 
 
Legal or not, Trump's actions serve as a warning to other government employees that if you get in the way of his corrupt path, you'll be smeared and find yourself out of a job.
 
Mach said:
Freedom of speech negates witness tampering? What an idiot.
I hope none of his supporters are stupid enough to believe that. (surely not)

Kind of like when he claims his abuse of power can't be abuse of power, because it's a power he has....like some sort of child-like imposter in the White House.

Also when he claimed he could fire Comey, therefore firing Comey for corrupt reasons, is OK.

It's almost like there is a pattern of corrupt behavior, then defending it with the most absurd remarks possible.
Click to expand...

As with so many other things, Democrats are making absurd legal arguments that they will only ever apply to Trump just to try and contrive crimes and/or impeachable offenses.

There was nothing even remotely threatening about his tweets. He insulted her, period. The notion that insulting someone rises to the level of "witness" tampering. Was it witness tampering when Democrats were publicly insulting Linda Tripp back during the Clinton impeachment? Of course not.

This is part and parcel with the idiotic taffy-pull they are making of campaign finance law, where they are promulgating the argument that the statute which refers to things of "value" (which when you look at the list of specific items preceding it, the "other" thing(s) of "value" clearly refers to something of a clearly determinable monetary value, and not some nebulous thing that may be of some subjective benefit.

Another example was the attempted distortion of campaign finance law to make the Stormy Daniels payment a violation. They argued that it was an unreported campaign contribution because the NDA made it a thing of "value" to the campaign. Of course, if an NDA pursuant to a settlement makes said settlement or payment something of "value" for purposes of campaign finance law, Trump needs to immediately instruct the Attorney General to open an investigation into every member of Congress who have had sexual harassment and other civil claims against them settled with NDAs attached (we know for an absolute fact that this has happened, sometimes with taxpayer dollars). Because failure to report these payments as campaign contributions is apparently a crime.
 
Jay Falcon said:
You know what is really embarrassing and just downright pathetic, continuing to defend Trump. Have you no shame?
Click to expand...

What's pathetic, is that you people are going along with the legislative coup.
 
Trump said:
Getting FIRED for being sh*t at your job, is not reason to impeach a President... especially one whose catchphrase is 'You're fired!':lamo
Click to expand...

Who are you saying was ****ty at their job? Trump? yes I agree.
 
Marcus1124 said:
As with so many other things, Democrats are making absurd legal arguments that they will only ever apply to Trump just to try and contrive crimes and/or impeachable offenses.

There was nothing even remotely threatening about his tweets. He insulted her, period. The notion that insulting someone rises to the level of "witness" tampering. Was it witness tampering when Democrats were publicly insulting Linda Tripp back during the Clinton impeachment? Of course not.

This is part and parcel with the idiotic taffy-pull they are making of campaign finance law, where they are promulgating the argument that the statute which refers to things of "value" (which when you look at the list of specific items preceding it, the "other" thing(s) of "value" clearly refers to something of a clearly determinable monetary value, and not some nebulous thing that may be of some subjective benefit.

Another example was the attempted distortion of campaign finance law to make the Stormy Daniels payment a violation. They argued that it was an unreported campaign contribution because the NDA made it a thing of "value" to the campaign. Of course, if an NDA pursuant to a settlement makes said settlement or payment something of "value" for purposes of campaign finance law, Trump needs to immediately instruct the Attorney General to open an investigation into every member of Congress who have had sexual harassment and other civil claims against them settled with NDAs attached (we know for an absolute fact that this has happened, sometimes with taxpayer dollars). Because failure to report these payments as campaign contributions is apparently a crime.
Click to expand...

Being smeered by the most powerful man in the world while on the stand against him. That would be chilling to anyone.
 
Last edited:
j brown's body said:
Legal or not, Trump's actions serve as a warning to other government employees that if you get in the way of his corrupt path, you'll be smeared and find yourself out of a job.
Click to expand...

A, let's break this down. People in the Executive Branch fall into two categories, civil servants who have some statutory protection from dismissal for anything but cause or budget reasons (which I actually disagree with the Constitutionality of, but that is for another discussion), and others who serve entirely at the pleasure of the President. There is also a hybrid category of those who are civil servants with statutory protection but who are assigned to posts at the absolute discretion of the President, who can pull them from their position at any time and for any reason, but will still be employed.

The people thus far involved have been in positions that are clearly within the ability of the President to dismiss (at least from the position they are filling) at any time, for any reason.

For the same reason that the dismissal of Comey could not be a crime (you cannot by statute limit any inherent power of the President), so to would the exercise of this perogative with any other member of the Executive branch.

As for "smearing", if the "threat" of being insulted publicly rises to the level of "witness tampering", I can give you a laundry list of government officials (including members of Congress...such as Adam Schiff) have engaged in the identical behavior.
 
Trump said:
Getting FIRED for being sh*t at your job, is not reason to impeach a President... especially one whose catchphrase is 'You're fired!'
Click to expand...

It seems no one but the Don and his made men were critical of her, and for doing her job and not pressing the Urkraine government to 'follow up' disproven theories on election tampering and the son of a political rival that has already been cleared... :peace
 
Trump said:
Getting FIRED for being sh*t at your job, is not reason to impeach a President... especially one whose catchphrase is 'You're fired!'
Click to expand...
I marvel at your brain's ability to create thoughts so devoid of facts.

Marie Yovanovitch is a 30 year veteran of U.S. diplomacy. The State Department asked her to extend her three-year ambassadorship to Kiev for an additional year. That doesn't sound like some who is s hity at here job. Yovanovitch was abruptly terminated from her overseas duties, not because she wasn't doing America's bidding. She was fired for refusing to Trump's personal bidding, against American interests. As Kent testified the day before, "when you are going after corruption, corrupted officials get pissed off." Trump got pissed off.
 
Marcus1124 said:
A, let's break this down. People in the Executive Branch fall into two categories, civil servants who have some statutory protection from dismissal for anything but cause or budget reasons (which I actually disagree with the Constitutionality of, but that is for another discussion), and others who serve entirely at the pleasure of the President. There is also a hybrid category of those who are civil servants with statutory protection but who are assigned to posts at the absolute discretion of the President, who can pull them from their position at any time and for any reason, but will still be employed.

The people thus far involved have been in positions that are clearly within the ability of the President to dismiss (at least from the position they are filling) at any time, for any reason.

For the same reason that the dismissal of Comey could not be a crime (you cannot by statute limit any inherent power of the President), so to would the exercise of this perogative with any other member of the Executive branch.

As for "smearing", if the "threat" of being insulted publicly rises to the level of "witness tampering", I can give you a laundry list of government officials (including members of Congress...such as Adam Schiff) have engaged in the identical behavior.
Click to expand...

Trump's smearing of her go beyond yesterday's comments.

His remarks about the whistleblower, which like his comments about Yovonavich, serve to intimidate others.

Trump firing Comey in order to stop an investigation, amounts to obstruction of justice. It may not be illegal, due to lack of evidence concerning his intent, but we all know it is true, and we all know it's corrupt as hell.
But, okay. Let's see the list.
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
I marvel at your brain's ability to create thoughts so devoid of facts.

Marie Yovanovitch is a 30 year veteran of U.S. diplomacy. The State Department asked her to extend her three-year ambassadorship to Kiev for an additional year. That doesn't sound like some who is s hity at here job. Yovanovitch was abruptly terminated from her overseas duties, not because she wasn't doing America's bidding. She was fired for refusing to Trump's personal bidding, against American interests.
Click to expand...

Boss fired her....Get over it.:shrug:
 
Marcus1124 said:
A, let's break this down. People in the Executive Branch fall into two categories, civil servants who have some statutory protection from dismissal for anything but cause or budget reasons (which I actually disagree with the Constitutionality of, but that is for another discussion), and others who serve entirely at the pleasure of the President. There is also a hybrid category of those who are civil servants with statutory protection but who are assigned to posts at the absolute discretion of the President, who can pull them from their position at any time and for any reason, but will still be employed.

The people thus far involved have been in positions that are clearly within the ability of the President to dismiss (at least from the position they are filling) at any time, for any reason.

For the same reason that the dismissal of Comey could not be a crime (you cannot by statute limit any inherent power of the President), so to would the exercise of this perogative with any other member of the Executive branch.

As for "smearing", if the "threat" of being insulted publicly rises to the level of "witness tampering", I can give you a laundry list of government officials (including members of Congress...such as Adam Schiff) have engaged in the identical behavior.
Click to expand...

Marie Yovanovitch testified that the president had the authority to remove her as ambassador. That is not in dispute. She however asked why she needed to be humiliated as opposed to just removed?

What is enlightening about this affair is what's rising to the surface for all to see, is that apart from Trump's laughable mantra that he was fighting corruption in Ukraine, is that he was trying to FOSTER CORRUPTION in the Ukraine -- for his own personal and financial benefit. Marie Yovanovitch wouldn't play along -- so she had to go.

Comey's firing, for not being nice to Mike Flynn, can be argued as an official act with a corrupt purpose. It would be like a mayor of a city receiving a speeding ticket from a police officer that he has the right to fire -- and firing her so she can't go to court. He has the right to fire but not for a corrupt purpose.
 
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...

It was an idiotic thing to do considering what was going on during the testimony, and adds more credibility to the smear campaign against her. This is one of the many times where it's clear he doesn't think before he speaks, and chooses to take the unnecessary hard road which often leaves his administration having to put out whatever fires he starts. Does he have freedom of speech? Of course, but just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it wise to do so. I can call someone an d-bag, but that doesn't make it the smart thing to do; nor does it mean there won't be a reaction.
 
Mach said:
Freedom of speech negates witness tampering? What an idiot.
I hope none of his supporters are stupid enough to believe that. (surely not)

Kind of like when he claims his abuse of power can't be abuse of power, because it's a power he has....like some sort of child-like imposter in the White House.

Also when he claimed he could fire Comey, therefore firing Comey for corrupt reasons, is OK.

It's almost like there is a pattern of corrupt behavior, then defending it with the most absurd remarks possible.
Click to expand...

And that is the rub, it isn't that he fired her, it is that he felt the need to do a smear campaign and then threaten her. Why do that? If his power is absolute in regards to removing an ambassador?
Either he knew he was doing it for corrupt reasons and needed to build a narrative, or he is just a sadistic prick. Neither of which is presidential behavior.
If he had just let her go from her position, and nothing else, there would be no there there.
But add in Lev, Igor and Rudy as the three henchmen of the derpocolypse and here we are.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
His tweets are official government communications, therefore his attacks consist of government harassment of a citizen for speaking.
That's not freedom of speech. It is the crux of the very thing that the First Amendment protects Yovanovitch FROM.

The President of the United States is incapable of understanding the meaning of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

And apparently that ignorance has dribbled down the watershed to his supporters.
As I said yesterday, when fox news talking heads are saying this was bad, you done ****ed up, but good.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
How was Yovanovitch "sh*t at her job"?
Click to expand...

She said nothing when Ukrainian officials choose sides in US 2016 Presidential election as she professes countries should not influence other countries elections.....crickets....didn't say a word....but now...oh my the hypocrisy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom