Trump defends Yovanovitch attack: 'I have freedom of speech'

[Marcus1124]

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.

Semantics

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.

What private benefit? Are you referring to the potential POLITICAL benefit as a "private" benefit? If so, than name me a politician who does NOT consistently use the powers of his or her office in a manner that they deem to be to their personal POLITICAL benefit? Hell, I could make a far more compelling intellectual case that the democratic party's entire fiscal platform amounts to "bribery" (vote for me and I will give you lots of other people's money using the power of the office you give me) than anything in the Trump-Ukraine phone call.

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.[/QUOTE]

Typical myopic and small-minded view of things. By your reasoning all Presidential (in fact ALL politician's) phone calls and meetings should be completely public! Of course nobody would argue that (though the underlying logic of the argument you made would clearly support that). Of course THIS President, because of the criminal actions of people (leaking of his phone calls with a foreign leader earlier in his administration for no other purpose than to damage him politically) has a CLEAR and COMPELLING reason to be more guarded of his communications with other leaders than not.

 

[MTAtech]

If Biden were not running for President, would it then be OK? Of course it would, therefore it is clearly within the scope of the President's Article II powers, and not circumsribable by statute.

The real BS is that running for public office is somehow a shield from what would otherwise be perfectly legal investigation.

On Kennedy, it doesn't matter that meetings didn't take place, it is an established fact from information in the now released Soviet archives that Kennedy ATTEMPTED to collude with the Soviets to harm Reagan politically:

Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit

It wouldn't be ok if Biden wasn't running for president. A president who encourages another government to investigate one of our citizens and subject them to foreign laws is violating a duty to our citizens. If our laws are being violated, as the other govt to extradite.

What makes Trump's actions especially wrong is tying American aid to the investigation.

 

[Marcus1124]

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.

Um, the investigation into possible interference in the 2016 election, and corruption on the part of elected U.S. officials and their families is not in the interest of the United States?

President's can conduct foreign policy through whatever channels they want.

And there is a difference between doing something for one's own PERSONAL benefit and for one's own POLITICAL benefit. Name me a politician who does not consistently use the power of their office in a manner that they deem to be in their own personal political interest.

 

[Marcus1124]

Witness tampering applies to congressional hearings which are also given under oath.

Except it is not witness tampering. If it is, than most public officials who have spoken on this issue would be equally guilty.

Insulting people is not, and has never been considered witness tampering, therefor the risk (not even threat, but presumed risk) of being insulted by the President of the United States is not witness tampering. ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that nobody has been deterred or intimidated from actually testifying or been otherwise "chilled". Hell, I would argue that Adam Schiff has abused his power more in not allowing witnesses who WANT to testify, and who other elected members of Congress have submitted on their witness list.

 

[Marcus1124]

It was meant for other witnesses intending to testify

Really? Can you name a single witness who has been deterred from testifying for fear of the President tweeting mean things about them?

Of course there is a much more benign and rational interpretation of the intent of his statements...to discredit the witnesses to minimize their political impact. That is clear cut, constitutionally protected (First Amendment) speech.

 

[MTAtech]

Um, the investigation into possible interference in the 2016 election, and corruption on the part of elected U.S. officials and their families is not in the interest of the United States?

President's can conduct foreign policy through whatever channels they want.

And there is a difference between doing something for one's own PERSONAL benefit and for one's own POLITICAL benefit. Name me a politician who does not consistently use the power of their office in a manner that they deem to be in their own personal political interest.

The idea that the Ukraine and not Russia, was interfering in the 2016 election were Russia hatched conspiracy theories that have been long debunked.

Presidents cannot conduct foreign policy if the purpose was of a corrupt intent. Trump trying to drum up help from Zelinsky to help him in the 2020 election, is corrupt intent.

 

[Marcus1124]

It wouldn't be ok if Biden wasn't running for president. A president who encourages another government to investigate one of our citizens and subject them to foreign laws is violating a duty to our citizens. If our laws are being violated, as the other govt to extradite.

What makes Trump's actions especially wrong is tying American aid to the investigation.

Would it surprise you that we do so on nearly a daily basis? There is daily cooperation and mutual requests to and from foreign governments with regard to criminal investigations of our own citizens. Biden's actions, by the arguments being made against Trump, was attempted bribery (more accurately extortion). The VP threatened to have aid withheld if they did not take specific actions with regard to their internal criminal justice system, and in a manner which may personally benefit Biden's son.

Only a fool would believe that there was not corruption involved in Barisma's hiring of a clearly unqualified drug addict for such a high (very high based on comparison to Board positions for similiarly sized companies) for no other reason than that he was the son of the Vice President of the United States. In fact, that it may have been legal is in and of itself a demonstration of why many people voted for Trump, because our entire entrenched political system have rigged the rules for themselves, their family and friends. You may not be familiar with this concept, but sometimes, with regard to people in political power, is what they choose to permit to be legal when it is clearly corrupt. In this regard, Elizabeth Warren manages to be right and wrong at the same time. The system IS rigged, but she is wrong that it is rigged at the behest of the rich, it is rigged in favor of the entrenched political establishment. Care to guess how many laws Congress has exempted themselves from?

 

[MTAtech]

Would it surprise you that we do so on nearly a daily basis? There is daily cooperation and mutual requests to and from foreign governments with regard to criminal investigations of our own citizens. Biden's actions, by the arguments being made against Trump, was attempted bribery (more accurately extortion). The VP threatened to have aid withheld if they did not take specific actions with regard to their internal criminal justice system, and in a manner which may personally benefit Biden's son.

Only a fool would believe that there was not corruption involved in Barisma's hiring of a clearly unqualified drug addict for such a high (very high based on comparison to Board positions for similiarly sized companies) for no other reason than that he was the son of the Vice President of the United States. In fact, that it may have been legal is in and of itself a demonstration of why many people voted for Trump, because our entire entrenched political system have rigged the rules for themselves, their family and friends. You may not be familiar with this concept, but sometimes, with regard to people in political power, is what they choose to permit to be legal when it is clearly corrupt. In this regard, Elizabeth Warren manages to be right and wrong at the same time. The system IS rigged, but she is wrong that it is rigged at the behest of the rich, it is rigged in favor of the entrenched political establishment. Care to guess how many laws Congress has exempted themselves from?

A) You are conflating normal negotiations with attempting to influence a foreign government to investigate an American citizen for personal benefit. Evidence is that Trump didn't even care if they did the investigation, as long as they announced it. This shows the bad faith on the topic. Trump merely wanted to use the investigation to advertise: "Biden is under investigation in the Ukraine," in campaign advertising.

B) Biden when holding up aid had no personal motive but was instead American policy. A <> B, when A and B aren't the same.

C) Apart from Trump trying to unrig the system, he was trying to rig it to his benefit. Thinking that Trump is some kind of reformer tells me how his supporters are merely like Trump University students who got conned. He's rigged the tax-system to be more tilted to the rich and his insiders benefit from government decisions.

 

[bomberfox]

Except it is not witness tampering. If it is, than most public officials who have spoken on this issue would be equally guilty.

Insulting people is not, and has never been considered witness tampering, therefor the risk (not even threat, but presumed risk) of being insulted by the President of the United States is not witness tampering. ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that nobody has been deterred or intimidated from actually testifying or been otherwise "chilled". Hell, I would argue that Adam Schiff has abused his power more in not allowing witnesses who WANT to testify, and who other elected members of Congress have submitted on their witness list.

Lot more than just insults when it comes from the president.

 

[NWRatCon]

President's can conduct foreign policy through whatever channels they want.

And there is a difference between doing something for one's own PERSONAL benefit and for one's own POLITICAL benefit..

No, they friggin' can't. Show me that provision of the Constitution. What an idiotic argument.

 

[uptower]

Sigh, yes the president has the absolute right to run his frickin' mouth and make a fool of himself. He exercises it daily.

 

[Marcus1124]

The idea that the Ukraine and not Russia, was interfering in the 2016 election were Russia hatched conspiracy theories that have been long debunked.

Gee, has it never occurred to you that it is not at all binary? Why do you seem intellectually incapable of grasping that interference by one is in no way, shape, or form mutually exclusive of interference by the other as well? I realize that most liberals have a hard time with basic logic, but seriously.

Presidents cannot conduct foreign policy if the purpose was of a corrupt intent. Trump trying to drum up help from Zelinsky to help him in the 2020 election, is corrupt intent.

Really? Does that mean Obama was equally as guilty in his plea to Putin to aid him politically in 2012 in exchange for greater "flexibility" afterwards?

And where in the Constitution is there a limitation on the President's exercise of his powers based on his "intent"? As previously indicated, there can be no criminal statute that circumscribes the President's inherent powers.

 

[ClaraD]

Really? Can you name a single witness who has been deterred from testifying for fear of the President tweeting mean things about them?

Of course there is a much more benign and rational interpretation of the intent of his statements...to discredit the witnesses to minimize their political impact. That is clear cut, constitutionally protected (First Amendment) speech.

several have not testified because Trump said that witnesses should be fired or even jailed.

 

[OscarLevant]

And what you fail to grasp is the ACTUAL evidence is that his actions have NOT intimidated people. \

Horse crap.


You have the president of the united states, the most powerful man in the world, rag on your ass to an audience world wide, some of whom are frothing-at-the-mouth crazies who will threaten to kill you, on a number of occasions and you're gonna tell me it's not intimidating?


Tell me you are not that stupid, say it isn't so.

 

[OscarLevant]

And how has he done that?

Did Obama's willful violation of his oath of office in ignoring immigration law and granting quasi-legal status through DACA impeachable?

The left has long sought to criminalize policy differences.

Nothing to do with policy.

First off, his blanket direction of his staff to deny Congressional subpoenas is Contempt of Congress, his failure to provide subpoenaed documents is obstruction of justice, and both of these constitute and abuse power and a betrayal of his oath of office.

During the debates, when he announced ' Russia, if you are listening...."

Where he asked Russia to commit cyberespionage, whether joking or not, is so reckless it's beyond comprehension. THe list of things this man as done which makes him unworthy of the office is long and extensive, and would vastly exceed the 5000 character limit.

There's a lot more, by why bother? The fact that you fail to realize what is glaringly obvious destroys any credibility you imagine you have.

Obama's treatment of immigrants is more human, and if you notice, the illegal numbers went way down during his tenure.

DACA is a humane issue. This is nothing impeachable about it.

 

[MTAtech]

And what you fail to grasp is the ACTUAL evidence is that his actions have NOT intimidated people.

Trump told a private group at a midtown hotel that the people who gave information to the whistleblower were "close to a spy," and said the U.S. should "handle" them like it did "in the old days" — a veiled reference to execution.

 

[MTAtech]

Nothing to do with policy.

First off, his blanket direction of his staff to deny Congressional subpoenas is Contempt of Congress, his failure to provide subpoenaed documents is obstruction of justice, and both of these constitute and abuse power and a betrayal of his oath of office.

During the debates, when he announced ' Russia, if you are listening...."

Where he asked Russia to commit cyberespionage, whether joking or not, is so reckless it's beyond comprehension. THe list of things this man as done which makes him unworthy of the office is long and extensive, and would vastly exceed the 5000 character limit.

There's a lot more, by why bother? The fact that you fail to realize what is glaringly obvious destroys any credibility you imagine you have.

Obama's treatment of immigrants is more human, and if you notice, the illegal numbers went way down during his tenure.

DACA is a humane issue. This is nothing impeachable about it.

Absolutely. When Obama made policy regarding immigration, it was challenged in court. My recollection is that Obama lost that suit. Did Obama ignore the court? No. He followed it. So, for Marcus to first say that Obama's actions are a violation of his office is silly. Then, to equate Trump violating subpoenas and ethics rules with anything that Obama did, is the falsest of equivalence.

 

[Marcus1124]

A) You are conflating normal negotiations with attempting to influence a foreign government to investigate an American citizen for personal benefit. Evidence is that Trump didn't even care if they did the investigation, as long as they announced it. This shows the bad faith on the topic. Trump merely wanted to use the investigation to advertise: "Biden is under investigation in the Ukraine," in campaign advertising.

B) Biden when holding up aid had no personal motive but was instead American policy. A <> B, when A and B aren't the same.

C) Apart from Trump trying to unrig the system, he was trying to rig it to his benefit. Thinking that Trump is some kind of reformer tells me how his supporters are merely like Trump University students who got conned. He's rigged the tax-system to be more tilted to the rich and his insiders benefit from government decisions.

We are just supposed to take as gospel that Biden had no personal motive, when the prosecutor he was insisting be fired just happened to be investigating the company which had hired his drug addict son to an extraordinarily high paid position for which he had no qualifications other than the fact that he was Joe Biden's son. If you think that the material well being and prosperity of one's children is not a personal motive for many parents (especially those who have lived their entire adult lives in the swamp of DC, where it is standard operating procedure for elected officials family and friends to be taken care of at either the behest of, or to curry favor with, those officials), you are not a particularly keen observer of humanity.

I will grant that for Trump, pulling back the curtains and letting the light shine in on the self-dealing and fundamentally corruption of not only our own entrenched political class, but their family and friends would be to his personal political benefit, but that makes it no less a matter of public interest (particularly to those who voted for him). And again, there is not a single politician that does NOT regularly exercise their power in a manner that they deem to be in their personal political interest, that is the definition of politics! That is fundamentally different from using one's office for their (or their family and friends) personal FINANCIAL interests. When politicians exercise the powers of their offices in ways that are in their personal POLITICAL interests, they ALWAYS manage to convince themselves that it is ALSO in the national or public interest as well. To a certain extent they are correct in that we live in a representative democratic republic, where the actions of elected officials and whether or not they serve the interests of the people is what we have elections for. I have no problem with Congress shining a bright light on the actions of the Executive Branch, but it is for the PEOPLE to decide whether or not his actions served not only his personal POLITICAL interests, but also THEIR interests. That is why this should not even remotely rise to the level of impeachment, but should rather be a campaign issue.

I strongly suspect that what the democrats (and some republicans) fear is that in a Senate trial, when Trump is actually allowed to put on a defense (unlike during the Adam Schitt Show), one of his strongest arguments (and most damning of his accusers) will be to shine the light on not only the Biden's (and not just Ukraine, but Communist Chinese-backed interests shoveling millions in venture capital funds to Hunter's firm) but many other members of the political elite whose families have made millions monetizing their public offices. In the first decade of this century, I spent quite a lot of time with quite a few people who were at the forefront of issues involved in "state capture" (aka corruption), one of the things that they all agreed on was that in most instances, the most truly corrupt things were those that the governing elite made legal for themselves, their families, and supporters. So next time we hear Biden or his defenders say that neither he nor his son did anything "wrong", that is not true. It may not have been illegal, but it is textbook corruption, and sadly, par for the course not only in Ukraine, but in our country.

 

[HumblePi]

We are just supposed to take as gospel that Biden had no personal motive, when the prosecutor he was insisting be fired just happened to be investigating the company which had hired his drug addict son to an extraordinarily high paid position for which he had no qualifications other than the fact that he was Joe Biden's son. If you think that the material well being and prosperity of one's children is not a personal motive for many parents (especially those who have lived their entire adult lives in the swamp of DC, where it is standard operating procedure for elected officials family and friends to be taken care of at either the behest of, or to curry favor with, those officials), you are not a particularly keen observer of humanity.

I will grant that for Trump, pulling back the curtains and letting the light shine in on the self-dealing and fundamentally corruption of not only our own entrenched political class, but their family and friends would be to his personal political benefit, but that makes it no less a matter of public interest (particularly to those who voted for him). And again, there is not a single politician that does NOT regularly exercise their power in a manner that they deem to be in their personal political interest, that is the definition of politics! That is fundamentally different from using one's office for their (or their family and friends) personal FINANCIAL interests. When politicians exercise the powers of their offices in ways that are in their personal POLITICAL interests, they ALWAYS manage to convince themselves that it is ALSO in the national or public interest as well. To a certain extent they are correct in that we live in a representative democratic republic, where the actions of elected officials and whether or not they serve the interests of the people is what we have elections for. I have no problem with Congress shining a bright light on the actions of the Executive Branch, but it is for the PEOPLE to decide whether or not his actions served not only his personal POLITICAL interests, but also THEIR interests. That is why this should not even remotely rise to the level of impeachment, but should rather be a campaign issue.

I strongly suspect that what the democrats (and some republicans) fear is that in a Senate trial, when Trump is actually allowed to put on a defense (unlike during the Adam Schitt Show), one of his strongest arguments (and most damning of his accusers) will be to shine the light on not only the Biden's (and not just Ukraine, but Communist Chinese-backed interests shoveling millions in venture capital funds to Hunter's firm) but many other members of the political elite whose families have made millions monetizing their public offices. In the first decade of this century, I spent quite a lot of time with quite a few people who were at the forefront of issues involved in "state capture" (aka corruption), one of the things that they all agreed on was that in most instances, the most truly corrupt things were those that the governing elite made legal for themselves, their families, and supporters. So next time we hear Biden or his defenders say that neither he nor his son did anything "wrong", that is not true. It may not have been illegal, but it is textbook corruption, and sadly, par for the course not only in Ukraine, but in our country.

We've gone through all of this so many times here already, I feel like throwing up seeing it asked again and again. I wish people would check threads first before repeating forum topics that have been discussed, argued, debated and beaten to death over and over again.

 

[RAMOSS]

Really? Quite frankly, Trump wasn't there, the ONLY reason that the witness had any friggin' idea what the President was tweeting about her is because the Democratic Chair of the committee READ the tweet to her. Trump had no reason to expect that the witness would know of his tweet until AFTER she was done testifying. If any one would be chilled, wouldn't that mean that anyone would recognize it's chilling power? If so, why on Earth would Schiff have read something to the witness that he would have every reason (according to you) to believe would be chillign to that witness?

But the FACT is that the witness was NOT chilled, and in fact said at one point in her testimony that regardless of the smears and insults, it would do nothing to deter her from her work.

Yet, the attempt was made.

 

[Marcus1124]

Lot more than just insults when it comes from the president.

Why is that? Can you really keep a straight face and claim that anyone who opposes this President is in any way, shape or form "intimidated", "deterred", or "chilled" by his personal insults?

 

[Marcus1124]

No, they friggin' can't. Show me that provision of the Constitution. What an idiotic argument.

Article II
Section 1
1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

ALL of the power of the Presidency is vested in the President. Unless otherwise restricted by the Constitution, he may exercise it as he chooses. Show me where he is restricted by the Constitution to conduct foreign policy through any specific means.

Presidents have engaged in what is referred to as "back channel" diplomacy since the early days of the Republic. Thomas Jefferson used a private citizen, Pierre Du Pont to engage in negotiations with France that eventually led to the Louisiana Purchase. There was also a deal to financially benefit Du Pont family interests in return for this service.

I am going to go out on a limb and assert that when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution, Jefferson was not the idiot on this issue.

 

[Marcus1124]

several have not testified because Trump said that witnesses should be fired or even jailed.

Name them. I suspect you will find that there is no evidence that they have failed to testify because of any threat, but rather because of perfectly legal and constitutionally protected claims of privilege (Executive, Attorney Client, etc...).

 

[Marcus1124]

Horse crap.


You have the president of the united states, the most powerful man in the world, rag on your ass to an audience world wide, some of whom are frothing-at-the-mouth crazies who will threaten to kill you, on a number of occasions and you're gonna tell me it's not intimidating?


Tell me you are not that stupid, say it isn't so.

Gee, how do you explain the clown car full of democrats running against him. They don't seem deterred?

Of course if death threats from a bunch of cranks is a "deterrent" nobody would ever run for President, nor in most instances engage in any activity that results in fame or notariety.

But there is a pretty simple test for whose view is stupid. Please name the people who have been deterred from testifying or speaking out against Trump because of his insults? I bet I can name 100 times as many people who have been not only undeterred, but emboldened to continue their public attacks on him.

 

[OscarLevant]

Gee, how do you explain the clown car full of democrats running against him. They don't seem deterred?

Of course if death threats from a bunch of cranks is a "deterrent" nobody would ever run for President, nor in most instances engage in any activity that results in fame or notariety.

But there is a pretty simple test for whose view is stupid. Please name the people who have been deterred from testifying or speaking out against Trump because of his insults? I bet I can name 100 times as many people who have been not only undeterred, but emboldened to continue their public attacks on him.

My comment was not about deterrence, it was about intimidation. You are conflating the two.

Just because someone is not deterrered by intimidation, doesn't mean intimidation did not occur.

For most, the billions who are ordinary and not running for prez, it would be more than intimidating, it would be traumatic.

I presume that is precisely why the whistleblower chooses to remain anonymous, he's not a person of the limelight, and would be traumatized by Trump's intentional intimidation for the intended purpose to discourage other potential whistleblowers ( with no concern to the trauma he would inflict ).



Capiche?


And if clowns bother you, you must be extremely bothered by the president, of whom close aids have characterized him as "idiot" "moron" ( Tillerson/Kelley, respectively, and they are no slouches )


And to prove that I'm not an idiot, I am not going to play your stupid game which does not refute my original point for the above stated reason, but you seem to think it does, so what does that say about you? You know the old saying, "stupid is as stupid does".