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

[ClaraD]

You mean the same Sondland, Volker, and Hill who TESTIFIED (in case you haven't been paying attention, that means that they were NOT "intimated" from testifying)? What evidence do you have that their testimony was not truthful and unduly hindered by any fear that they had of Trump sending mean tweets about them?

Hill specifically said she was intimidated. As far as who has so far not testified, since I was referring to who has actually testified against Trump verifying a quid pro quo...and not who is afraid...would be John Bolton

 

[ClaraD]

I find I very odd that VP Biden is put in charge of China and the Ukraine and his son just so happens to show up and start doing business in those two countries and not in the many other countries in the world. Just exactly what did Hunter’s corrupt boss expect for Hunter bloated salary? Why would China trust a drug addict with 1.5 billion dollars to invest. It all sounds like influenza peddling to me.

do you find it equally as odd that Ivanka Trump and Don Trump are doing business in Saudi Arabia as their daddy makes huge deals with Saudi Arabia for millions of dollars? Do you find it strange that Ivanka got a huge trademark in China?

 

[ClaraD]

Right, because the people who hired him corruptly, to trade on his personal connection to the Vice President of the United States are going to come out and admit that.




Really? No dealings? How often does the Vice President of the United States play golf with people without knowing exactly who they are? He was photographed during a golf outing with Hunter and another Burisma board member.



EXACTLY the point, as often as not, genuine state capture corruption is to be found in what the ruling elite keep legal for the benefit of their families and friends. Elizabeth Warren actually manages to be completely right, and completely wrong at the same time. She is absolutely RIGHT in saying that the system is rigged, but she is wrong that it is rigged for the rich and powerful (they didn't need a rigged system to BECOME rich and powerful, nor do they need it rigged to stay or become more rich and powerful), it is rigged for the political elites, their families and friends.

The notion that there is something more onerous about someone who became rich (and enriching their families and friends) and THEN goes into public service, than the opposite (people who go into public service and only THEN do they, their families, and friends become rich).

THAT is the "swamp", that is the true scandal, the shameless self-dealing that the entrenched political class engages in. I actually find it far less pernicious and corrupt if some rich guy donates millions of dollars to some school to get their less-than-qualified offspring in, then when the equally under-qualified children of powerful elected politicians are permitted in to curry favor with those officials (again, if you think that bestowing financial and other benefits on the children and other family members of elected officials is deemed any less as a thing of value by the official, you are denying basic human nature).

As HumblePi noted, the Trump children are all profiting from their father's position.

Both his son and the person on the board are Americans. Further, what Trump claimed was FALSE and interestingly enough, you continue to parrot his lies as if they were truths.
Trump claims a photo shows the Bidens playing golf with a Ukrainian company ‘boss.’ But it doesn’t | PolitiFact

• The photo shows the Bidens with another American board member of Burisma.

• Biden hasn’t said whether or not he’s spoken with Burisma officials.

The man on the far left of the frame is Devon Archer. In 2008, Hunter Biden joined with Archer — a former senior adviser for the presidential campaign of John Kerry in 2004 — in a string of investment and consulting firms.

May 2014 that the two had joined Burisma as board members. That role is different from "boss" or "executive," as Trump has claimed in separate tweets about the photo of Archer. Board members are not typically involved in day-to-day operations of a company.

The photo that Trump is referencing doesn’t show a Ukrainian executive of the company. It shows Devon Archer, a former board member and Hunter Biden’s longtime business partner. Also, Biden never said he had never spoken to Burisma — he said he’d never spoken to his son about his overseas business dealings.

 

[Marine Electric]

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.

I can't believe this idiot is our president.




:thumbdown

 

[bomberfox]

Really? Where are those in the Constitution? They are not there explicitly, they are "implied" powers. Furthermore, for someone who is accusing Trump of having abused HIS power, you seem oblivious to the fact that inherent to the Separation of Powers and our COEQUAL branches, that the President's exercise of HIS inherent powers (as THE head of the Executive Branch) in the face of Congress's abusing of its implied powers is very much in the spirit of the Constitution. There is a reason that Congress has absolutely NO power to enforce laws. Just as Congress had to refer the criminal contempt citation against AG Holder to the Obama justice department (who by your argument committed an impeachable offense by not pursuing it) for enforcement.

But again, the vapid hypocrisy is astounding. Not only did no democrats bat an eye when the Obama administration routinely ignored congressional subpoenas, only acquiescing when the courts said to (which even during the Obama administration I found to be an overstep by the Judicial branch, for I have always maintained, regardless of who is in office, that the courts actually do not have any place in resolving disputes between the other two branches and should stay out of it under the non-justiciable doctrine), but I don't recall any Republicans screaming that it was an impeachable obstruction of Congress in the interim.

Democrats not only make stupid constitutional and statutory interpretive arguments, but they are by far more hypocritical in applying the underlying reasoning (or lack thereof) in a consistent manner. Take for example the attempt to manufacture a campaign finance disclosure violation out of the Stormy Daniel's payment. They argued that because there was a non-Disclosure agreement (NDA) that this made it something of "value" to Trump's campaign, and by not disclosing the payment, it violated campaign finance disclosure laws. Stupid argument on its face, but utterly hypocritical in that many members of Congress have used TAXPAYER dollars to settle sexual harassement claims against them from their Congressional staff. Now, here is the kicker...ALL of them included NDAs. Care to guess how many disclosed those payments on their campaign finance disclosures? ZERO. Does this mean that Trump's DoJ is at liberty to request the details of all those payments from the U.S. Treasury and refer them to the FEC for investigation? After all, if Trump using his OWN money to secure NDAs and not disclosing it in his FEC disclosures was a crime, isn't using taxpayer money to do the exact same thing even more so (or at least as bad)? Stupid interpretation on its face, and revealed so by the fact that they can not come up with an argument against its logical application to other cases (individuals actually, which makes it even more dishonest and corrupt).

yawn bunch of nothing. Congress can investigate and impeach. You are losing so its fun to watch ya squirm. You have absolutely no argument against the process. Eat it trump cultist.

 

[ClaraD]

Really? Where are those in the Constitution? They are not there explicitly, they are "implied" powers. Furthermore, for someone who is accusing Trump of having abused HIS power, you seem oblivious to the fact that inherent to the Separation of Powers and our COEQUAL branches, that the President's exercise of HIS inherent powers (as THE head of the Executive Branch) in the face of Congress's abusing of its implied powers is very much in the spirit of the Constitution. There is a reason that Congress has absolutely NO power to enforce laws. Just as Congress had to refer the criminal contempt citation against AG Holder to the Obama justice department (who by your argument committed an impeachable offense by not pursuing it) for enforcement.

But again, the vapid hypocrisy is astounding. Not only did no democrats bat an eye when the Obama administration routinely ignored congressional subpoenas, only acquiescing when the courts said to (which even during the Obama administration I found to be an overstep by the Judicial branch, for I have always maintained, regardless of who is in office, that the courts actually do not have any place in resolving disputes between the other two branches and should stay out of it under the non-justiciable doctrine), but I don't recall any Republicans screaming that it was an impeachable obstruction of Congress in the interim.

Democrats not only make stupid constitutional and statutory interpretive arguments, but they are by far more hypocritical in applying the underlying reasoning (or lack thereof) in a consistent manner. Take for example the attempt to manufacture a campaign finance disclosure violation out of the Stormy Daniel's payment. They argued that because there was a non-Disclosure agreement (NDA) that this made it something of "value" to Trump's campaign, and by not disclosing the payment, it violated campaign finance disclosure laws. Stupid argument on its face, but utterly hypocritical in that many members of Congress have used TAXPAYER dollars to settle sexual harassement claims against them from their Congressional staff. Now, here is the kicker...ALL of them included NDAs. Care to guess how many disclosed those payments on their campaign finance disclosures? ZERO. Does this mean that Trump's DoJ is at liberty to request the details of all those payments from the U.S. Treasury and refer them to the FEC for investigation? After all, if Trump using his OWN money to secure NDAs and not disclosing it in his FEC disclosures was a crime, isn't using taxpayer money to do the exact same thing even more so (or at least as bad)? Stupid interpretation on its face, and revealed so by the fact that they can not come up with an argument against its logical application to other cases (individuals actually, which makes it even more dishonest and corrupt).

here are some quotes from past Supreme Court justices on this very issue.
James Wilson of Pennsylvania, a future Supreme Court Justice and Convention delegate, wrote in a 1774 essay that members of the Commons were considered “grand inquisitors of the realm. The proudest ministers of the proudest monarchs have trembled at their censures; and have appeared at the bar of the house, to give an account of their conduct, and ask pardon for their faults.” When the U.S. House convened in 1789, it established an early set of select committees, such as Rules and Ways and Means, to structure the legislative process including investigations.

And our founder James Madison said

Representative James Madison of Virginia said that the “House should possess itself of the fullest information in order to doing justice to the country and to public officers.”
The House has compelled the attendance of witnesses since 1795, when it investigated an attempt to bribe Members.

“We are of the opinion,” wrote Justice Van Devanter for a unanimous Court, “that the power of inquiry—with process to enforce it—is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. . . . A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information—which not infrequently is true—recourse must be had to others who possess it.

So your assertion is naive.

 

[NWRatCon]

here are some quotes from past Supreme Court justices on this very issue.
James Wilson of Pennsylvania, a future Supreme Court Justice and Convention delegate, wrote in a 1774 essay that members of the Commons were considered “grand inquisitors of the realm. The proudest ministers of the proudest monarchs have trembled at their censures; and have appeared at the bar of the house, to give an account of their conduct, and ask pardon for their faults.” When the U.S. House convened in 1789, it established an early set of select committees, such as Rules and Ways and Means, to structure the legislative process including investigations.

And our founder James Madison said

Representative James Madison of Virginia said that the “House should possess itself of the fullest information in order to doing justice to the country and to public officers.”
The House has compelled the attendance of witnesses since 1795, when it investigated an attempt to bribe Members.

“We are of the opinion,” wrote Justice Van Devanter for a unanimous Court, “that the power of inquiry—with process to enforce it—is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. . . . A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information—which not infrequently is true—recourse must be had to others who possess it.

So your assertion is naive.

Not really. That would imply that it is not intentionally deceptive.